Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 1

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^Talktome 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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^Talktome 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^Talktome 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^Talktome 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)

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)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection requested

I have requested semi-protection for this article since we're closing up on May 20 and there is some vandalism which we must inly assume will increase in the coming days. __meco (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bdw5000, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Everybody Draw Mohammed Day Official Facebook Page +

Bdw5000 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know what makes this 'official', but I'll add it; WP:BRD. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition. As the movement seems to be organized mainly from Facebook, it seems appropriate to include the link. OlYeller^Talktome 16:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a source whether the creators of South Park support this idea

Someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.59.83.189 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you've heard they do and can't remember where or are you trying to find a source to push a point of view? OlYeller^Talktome 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• The I.P. editor likely had motivations best described by the first part of your conjecture, OlYeller. The second part of your conjecture constitutes failure to assume good faith, which is uncivil and also violates WP:Don't bite the newbies. Please behave yourself here. Greg L (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaction from Muslims

Facebook blocked in Pakistan

According to GEO TV of Pakistan, The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has blocked Facebook over encouraging the event on May 19, 2010, as per orders of Lahore Hicourt --Ee.muhammad (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Read this early today. I think it should be added but I'm not really sure on where. Perhaps commentary as it's essentially a commentary from the officials of Pakistan. Opinions? OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note - Here's a search for more sources. I'm not saying GEO TV isn't reliable but I've never heard of it. That's anecdotal but there are larger sources out there that we can use. OlYeller^Talktome 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of notable Muslim Individuals

• Pervez Musharraf, ex-president of Pakistan supports ban on facebook for supporting the event. His step is important because he is considered among the strongest Anti-Extremism and Pro-America politicians in Pakistan[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee.muhammad (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Added new subsection. Added sources. [2]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook block at Criticism of Facebook

I would appreciate input from editors at this article regarding the Prophet Mohammed caricature group section at Criticism of Facebook, if only to share sources and not ending up telling entirely different tales. --Ibn (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Pakistan_bans_Facebook, the sources are pretty much there for use. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Short paragraphs

Let us please avoid short paragraphs and two-sentence-long paragraphs. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. What I tried was a tad too short. Perhaps a reasonable compromise? Note today’s Featured Article. And this, the first of my random selections of a Featured Article. And this second random FA selection. Wikipedia is famous for its pithy, succinct leads. The current first paragraph has become quite the monster. Greg L (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.". So the lede of this article, has to be big enough, in order to accomplish that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the lead must accomplish all that. I’m talking about the first paragraph of the lead. As exemplified by the above-linked FA articles, first paragraphs are best kept to a nice nugget that introduces the basic of the topic. Believe me on this one. I’ll try another stab at it and see if it meets with your approval. Greg L (talk)

 Done, [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was going to do. We think alike. Convergence; I love it. Gotta go. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointless Quotation

What is that Dan Olds quotation underneath 'Pakistan bans Facebook' about? That guy has no idea what on earth hes talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.254.35 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a noteworthy analysis from an independent reliable secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by User:Sparten

[4] - this edit removed sourced info and made unsourced changes, without using any edit summary to explain why. This is vandalism. Please do not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

User Cirt is clearly not interested in portraying an accurate description of events.

As reported here http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-lhc-orders-block-of-facebook-over-caricatures-ss-02

"Justice Ejaz Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court directed the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to block Facebook after a group of lawyers moved a petition in the court.

An interim order has been issued until May 31, when the court is to start a detailed hearing of the case."

An interim order, specifically under Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973. Clearly Cirt has not knowledge of Pakistani law. S/He should back down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending the above linked source. I have used it in the article, [5]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sparten, quoting you User Cirt is clearly not interested in portraying an accurate description of events. Please behave yourself. Just because this article has a religious theme is zero excuse to forget your manners. I assume you know better. Cirt is doing his best here in good faith. It would be nice if you assumed good faith, which is required on Wikipedia—especially so in this case in the face of clear evidence that Cirt is trying his best to be a good shepherd on this article and get all viewpoints into it so long as they are buttressed by reliable sources. And be sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) in a row, please. Greg L (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi, Cirt.

I would like to suggest Flying Spaghetti Monster for inclusion in the See also section. As a non-religious person, I merely look on with amusement at the *controversy* as one group assails another for not believing or embracing the views of another. Since Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is satirical in nature, and also has a Freedom of speech element (and also a Freedom of religion element), and since this controversy has a strong element of religious factions insisting that their views are meritorious and “correct,” it seems an appropriate and encyclopedic addition that is germane and topical to the subject.

I think this quote from Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth, “The Damned Human Race” speaks to this controversy:

“ Man is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. ”

Hopefully, a few more people will catch an important “Ah HAA!” by reading Flying Spaghetti Monster. With 3001 different religions in the world (Flying Spaghetti Monster being the three-thousand-and-first), there is ample breeding ground for people to focus vitriol on those whose “theology isn’t straight.”

Greg L (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear what others think about this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well. The inclusion seems every bit as germane as Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest; the common element is religious lampooning to make a point. You seem to be doing a fabulous job shepherding an article that is clearly controversial so I’ll leave it up to you. I am particularly impressed over your dealings with one particular editor here—amazing work. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Individuals had previously attempted to get this article deleted from Wikipedia at WP:AFD. I imagine that would be a bit more difficult at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this day is intended to be satirical in nature. Sure, it came as a reaction to assaults on expressions that were satirical, however, it is my impression that those who advocate the observance of and participation in this simply want people to draw Muhammed with no encouragement of satire. __meco (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine, Meco. I’m sure many people see this as only a deeply serious subject. Given the cartoon by the founder of this day and the reaction of many others, some of whom felt compelled to engage in self-deprecation such as the creation of the Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest, there is clearly a strong element of employing parody-to-make-a-point in an effort to deal with a clash of cultures. Such clashes will, unfortunately, likely become more common as electronic communications shrink the world and cause culture shock between peoples that don’t share highly similar values. Some think that the proper remedy to bad speech is death. I happen to think that the proper response to bad speech is better speech. But then, that’s just me. Greg L (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan bans Facebook

Regarding [6] - let us please keep it simple. With the short, simple sect header of Pakistan bans Facebook. This is through an official agency of the government of Pakistan. The section header is accurate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No its not accurate. The Government has been ordered by a court to do so, after a petition was moved, a petition the Government opposed. It is wrong and inaccurate to state what has been stated. In anycase the order is only till the 30th of May. Sparten (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for your claims please? -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: [7], hopefully this is satisfactory. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan has now banned Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and Wikipedia per Wired. OlYeller^Talktome 14:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

oh gee this article is totally NPOV

but I'm not gonna fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.40.212 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you share with us what sections you think are POV, we might be able to fix them. Otherwise, we're all just going to ignore you. OlYeller^Talktome 03:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ban is not indefinite. Just one example there will be other too.--yousaf465' 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamists

Is it really neutral to characterise those who consider depictions of the prophet to be profane as Islamists? Are there not non-Islamist Muslims who object to such depiction? 86.45.155.132 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether the reference is to those who merely object to such depictions or to those who threaten violent retaliation. __meco (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction to "taken offline" time --> 1200 GMT

Note: it is now only 1219 GMT.

Please correct the "time taken offline" from "1300 GMT" to "1200 GMT/UTC (1300 BST, 0800 EDT)"

Many people mistakenly think that London time is "GMT" (a now non-existant timezone). During the summer, London is on BST (British Summer Time), one hour ahead of UTC/GMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcovert (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Somewhat embarrassingly, I had just copy-edited that section. Somewhat more embarrassingly, my timezone is BST... and I've done enough TZ maths to know the difference between UTC+0 and GMT, let along UTC and BST... Thanks! TFOWR^propaganda 12:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

...and I didn't even get it right the first time... ho hum. Should be OK now, it reads "11:54 (UTC)" (i.e. about 30 minutes ago). This is probably a good time to push for a supporting reference - I realise this is unlikely to have been reported, yet, but it would be good to add a ref for the future. TFOWR^propaganda 12:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern -- The facebook page was never 'deleted' and never will be. It is now back online: Facebook pages that are very popular sometimes disappear for a short spell, usually when too many people post to the wall! Can someone please correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.221.105 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Moved from top of this thread. TFOWR^propaganda 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

-> The page is online again. Maybe it was some technical issue. Who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.164.23 (talk • contribs) 13:27 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK-ish now? We report that the page went offline and is now back online? The source being used is a blog (not good), however. I'm inclined to stick in a {{dubious}} tag - thoughts? TFOWR^propaganda 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no real proof that it was actually taken down as opposed to went down temporarily because of a large amount of wall posts (I've seen it happen on other groups in the past). I don't think there should be any mention of it, personally. With no proof that it was taken down, I just don't find it notable. OlYeller^Talktome 13:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the section. No objections if anyone disagrees and wishes to revert, however. TFOWR^propaganda 14:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is still a "the page has since been deleted" at the end of the section above where the "taken offline" appeared. (JRC, 14:46 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcovert (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (just before "Reactions in other Muslim Countries")

Fixed by OlYeller21. Incidentally, I think this was added before my removal of the section; apologies for missing it. TFOWR^propaganda 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put up the information we had on the page disappearing. With the Fox News story "'Everybody Draw Mohammed' Page Briefly Vanishes Due to Facebook Glitch" we have ample sourcing and discussion of the high tensions that led to a lot of people immediately assuming the outage was caused by Facebook censoring and denouncing them for it. __meco (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth considering. It'd forestall the inevitable "OMG censorship!" threads here, if nothing else... I'd normally be concerned about Fox news as a source, but in this case they seem to be missing an opportunity to blame Islam reporting the issue in a fair and balanced manner. TFOWR^propaganda 15:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about it a little more and I think we may be trying to asses the situation too quickly. It just happened hours ago and I think we're trying to decide on its inclusion essentially because the subject of the article is an event happening today. As the sources are still only speculating and Wikipedia isn't a news source (at least we're not to write articles with that intent), I think Wikipedia would be better served if we waited until more facts arise. If we REALLY feel the need to include it, I think that it should be clear in the article that no facts have been presented on why it went down and that all published accounts are speculation. An event's weight on history cannot be instantly assessed, in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're voicing a common concern in situations such as this one, but in my experience we usually have editors with sufficient experience to edit in "real time" having the necessary caveats and considerations in mind. My sentiment is that it could sometimes be better to add a little too much and then remove it dynamically when time and perspective renders it not so significant. __meco (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair. We seem to have enough experienced editors paying attention that I'm sure the change will be made if/when needed. I'm trying to think of any negative outcomes including the info could have but I can't really think of any at the moment. OlYeller^Talktome 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Norwegian article talking about the outage also. __meco (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilks and Westergaard support the Facebook page

I found quotes in Swedish and Danish newspaper articles that both Lars Wilks and Kurt Westergaard support this type of campaign and the Facebook page organizing the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day in particular. They should probably be quoted on this in the article. __meco (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Section structure

I'm not quite happy with how the article is presently sectioned. The comments section is too big. I am also unsure where the comments from Wilks and Westergaard should go. Perhaps that section could be subdivided? Should we clearly juxtapose commentary with reactions perhaps? __meco (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the comments section is too large. It's just a giant wall of text right now. We have a lot of quotes that might be able to be removed though I think trimming it into sections would be a better idea. OlYeller^Talktome 17:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be reluctant to remove things for a couple of days, then probably some quotes could be trimmed. The comments section could be subdivided. Wherever there's a doubt as to whether a passage is about an "action" or "commentary", we should probably put it in a spot outside that section. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As this is the day, there is more intense interest today than will likely be seen at any other time. Cirt, as a conscientious, good shepherd of this article, stepped in and did a great job trying to accommodate widely disparate views leading up to today. This effort of leaning backwards to placateeveryone’s concerns clearly resulted in a bit of bloat-itis. However, stability is indicated here for, as JohnWBarber wrote, “a couple of days.” Then we can sit back and let those who have best working collaboratively to shepherd this article to this point, go in and trim it to something more sensible. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am no good at all at restructuring work such as is required here, so I hope some of the other editors present will step up to the plate. __meco (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Contemplating doing so today sounds like as much fun as operating on a patient using only whiskey for an anesthetic. Greg L (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Get drunk and have a wild go at it. The rest of us can fix the minor glitches in the aftermath... __meco (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I divided the commentary section, as you can see. Since the paragraphs were just arbitrary groupings of comments, I chose to separate all the comments in a bulleted list. The section is physically longer now, but I think easier to navigate and read. If anyone objects we can of course discuss it. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, strongly. See below. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Please see Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Update_on_Commentary_section. I have refocused the Commentary subsection in the article. I have also greatly trimmed down the quotations. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Makdrive, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This page needs some editing regarding some facts. I request Wiki to let me edit this page. Thanks

Makdrive (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really work that way. Take a look at the template you posted. It explains how semi-protected pages are to be edited by editors with your standing. I'd explain it but I think it would do a better job than I can. OlYeller^Talktome 17:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To be more precise, you're not going to be given the ability to edit the article right now (until the 24th). Requesting edits will be the best way to change parts of the article that you think are erroneous. OlYeller^Talktome 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd also be advisable to read Help:Minor edit and stop marking every edit you make as minor. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify which parts of the article are incorrect and what the correction should be, providing sources to confirm the correct version. Then add the {{editsemiprotected}} to this talk page and somebody will come and make the edits for you. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITN

I and another editor have proposed that this article, with focus Pakistan's actions, goes on the "In The News" section of the main page. This is being discussed at WP:ITN/C. __meco (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You don’t find “controversy” to be the least bit intimidating, do you? I don’t have a *problem* with that at all; just an observation. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. I am very used to it. I try and usually succeed at maintaining my composure whatever the external circumstances. __meco (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Commentary section

Bulleted list formatting and sub-subsections within the Commentary section looks just plain awful. Please, do not do this. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See #Section structure above. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just plain awful, just looks terrible that way. Really. -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being fully aware of your opinion, really, look at the section above where sectioning is discussed, and see my comment on being willing to discuss my changes. If you don't like the bullets let's at least keep the subdivision, since there's consensus that it would help. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a childish and silly change, and looks like a Trivia section from some television episode article. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to style guidelines, lists are not necessarily to always be avoided. However, I've offered a compromise; I'm not insisting that the bulleted list be kept, but consensus has been demonstrated above that the sectioning, alone, would be beneficial. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That does not have to be done today, now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason to wait? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot is going on right now. It will be beneficial to give time to settle. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's going on that should prevent us from organizing the article (according to a consensus already demonstrated). An event being currently ongoing has never been reason to stop organizing its article, and I see no reason why it should. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, it should be organized Chronologically, and not thematically. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll tell you what, until you organize it chronologically, I'll organize it thematically as a stopgap solution, to make the section easier to navigate for readers in the interim. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will do that, right now. -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure what kinds of sebsections you're planning to create based on chronology, but I'll wait and see. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for agreeing to wait. -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. However, just grouping them by the month in which they were said doesn't seem all that useful to readers. Wouldn't it be more useful to group them by support and criticism? What's your reasoning here? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have added the {{wip}} tag to the page. I am in the midst of doing some changes. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Update on Commentary section

1. I have sub-sectioned the Commentary section, into a pure chronological format, organized by date of the writing of the analysis.
2. This provides the reader with a chronological flow of commentary, as the date drew close to (and subsequent to) the historical event.
3. Sectioning in this manner makes organization easier, as it is very simple to determine which info goes where.
4. It is less contentious, and avoids potential petty squabbling over which commentary should be categorized thematically as what, for example arguing over what is "pro" and what is "anti" and what is "neutral", etc. etc. etc.
5. In the future, we can have commentary after May 20, 2010 - and have a subsection for that.
6. Events, comments from notable individuals that rise to the level of independent-historical-events themselves, should not go in the Commentary subsection. These should instead be incorporated into the History section, as impacting on the history of the phenomenon described, itself.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a section on the facebook groups created in response

For example the group "Everybody draw Holocaust day (30 jun 2010)" 202.89.188.44 (talk)M

Find a news source reporting this. Alatari (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of protesters

The image of angry protesters, which is displayed currently on the talk page, has been removed from the article. Since the article does discuss these protests I think this image should be put back into the article. __meco (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Very much agree, such an image would be highly useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No. That image was from 2006. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that image. Of course, you are right (the image seems a copyvio anyway) - but that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't have an image of protesters. There are quite a few images of recent protests floating around - those, I think you'd agree, would be appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Free use images relating to protests regarding this event, would certainly be relevant, acceptable, and appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actual drawings of Mohammed made on this day

Thousands of images have been drawn according to news reports. Why would it be hard to present a selection of them in the article? It shouldn't be unless some unseen force is actively suppressing any images drawn on this day for this event being uploaded to commons#Deletion requests (also). (A link to the deleted drawing) __meco (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A gallery would be useful, but most of that stuff would be fair use. I wonder how many artists actually thought about releasing that work under a free license (which presumably would suit their purpose, as in - they'd want this art to be shared...)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the license of the www.drawmuhammed.com in Wayback. They may have already agreed to a GNU license. Is uploading to a FB user group allow public usage? If I screen shot each from the group is that allowable. I'm hazy on this part. That said... we will have to limit the images to maybe 1,2 or 3 and I don't relish the debate. I would suggest using the top three 'winner's from the competition. Alatari (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no available copies in Wayback. It says they're there, but when you click the date link it isn't. __meco (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading files to FB DOES NOT mean you are giving anybody any rights, not unless you specify somewhere (file / gallery description) that you do (usually by giving the free license). If you care about it, you may want to contact individual facebook editors who created those images and ask them to add free license to them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added a gallery of free use images submitted by Flickr users. -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They might get deleted at Commons: I'd appreciate if others would care to try and explain the situation to some people at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mohammed by meco.png. __meco (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They might have deleted that one because: 1) It was made by a Wikipedia user, circular logic. 2) It was viewed by them as distasteful. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly both, but I still thinks some balance needs to come to that discussion. __meco (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the gallery should reflect the spirit of the day which is not to be overtly offensive to Islam. I think the Trevor Blake depiction from Portland Oregon is not necessary. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored but I believe the spirit of the protest was to have many many folks depiciting Mohammed but not to be directly offensive to all Islamists -- even those who don't have a problem with depictions in general. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it really was a mixed bag. Among the extremely offensive ones I saw one of the prophet with his pants around his ankles humping a pig. Then there were the ones showing him as extremely violent and bloodthirsty. And there were many innocuous ones which looked very nice indeed. __meco (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point in time I am not too concerned. There are lots to choose from. The hardest part is getting individuals to license them by an acceptable free use license, preferably Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike. Right now, that status is currently =  Doing.... ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with User:Therefore. Molly Norris’s intention as evidenced by her poster is clearly to support the free-speech rights of cartoonists and everyone else without going out of one’s way to be insulting to Islam. I find the current selection of depictions to be germane, topical, encyclopedic, and within the spirit of the day as Molly intended it. Though some devout Muslims (perhaps those who put one-million-dollar bounties on cartoonists’ heads) will no-doubt find the inclusion of depictions here to be offensive to them, I would suggest A) that if they are going to go to an Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article, they should not profess to be surprised to find depictions in the article, and B) omitting them would be deeply offensive to me. Greg L (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree. -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• If someone vehemently disagrees with me, they can establish an Everybody Draw Greg L Day! This is my proposed first entry for the gallery. Greg L (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Zapiro on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Not sure if it should be noted, but one cartoonist did draw something about this day [8], (and he is already getting the obligatory threats that normally follow [9]). FFMG (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several more cartoonists participated, as well. I know off the top of my head of Over the Hedge and Nic Buxom. I'm wondering if a small section referencing well-known cartoons that participated would be useful. (This would probably roll into the discussion section above.) - Shiori (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How come nobody noticed...

That Facebook took down "Everybody draw mohammed day", but left up the group "AGAINST Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", which was full of the 7th-century pedophile's cult members shouting death threats and world domination rhetoric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwannadrawmohammed (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think "nobody noticed"? There's a discussion - a lengthy one - not far above this post. No conspiracy here, I'm afraid. TFOWR^propaganda 12:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rqureshi, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Rqureshi (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You need to tell us what you'd like to change ;-) We're not mind-readers...! TFOWR^propaganda 13:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rqureshi, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the image File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg from this page as it plays with religious sentiments of Muslims. Thanks

Rqureshi (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done It's going to be very difficult to illustrate the subject without this image. I don't believe Wikipedia should needlessly offend any of its readers, but offence to some readers is sometimes unavoidable. See this policy for a wider discussion about issues such as this. TFOWR^propaganda 13:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.86.45.216, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

in background they accept a "submission accept if it does not relate to..." accept should be except.

173.86.45.216 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done OlYeller^Talktome 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

suggestion, reference to a followon event

I would like to suggest it if you would add info about a followon event I've just gotten email about, a friend saw a comment on a blog about it. wikipedia can help scoop many sources before users join in. It seems to also have some good reference links to info about the original Everybody Draw Mohammed day event.

There is a facebook page for Show Mohammed Day, June 3 at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Show-Mohammed-Day/121228857900451 It says "Show Mohammed Day: June 3, 2010 Rallies in Celebration of Freedom of Speech & Religion: Honoring the Spirit of the First Amendment."

There is also a link to a web page that seems to just have a copy of the facebook welcome page at the moment: http://www.showmohammed.com/ Hopefully its in case facebook censors the other group (or whatever happened to the EveryBody Draw Mohammed Day page that seems to have disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebratefreespeech (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us please stick to secondary sources and WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of video

Martin H. (talk · contribs) removed a video from the Gallery section [10]. Let us please discuss this. It appears to simply be a video of a man drawing a picture. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The same above user that removed the file from the article, has gone and nominated it for deletion, at Wikimedia Commons. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draw Muhammad Day video by AwesomeSauceUK.ogv. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why dont you write the whole statement of that non-notable individual in the article? Including the video to the article is exactly what you did as the sound is part of the media file and so it is now a part of the article. Would you like to write a personal statement to the article too? --Martin H. (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not written a "personal statement", and do not intend to. But please, feel free to attempt to obtain other free use relevant media for this article. It would be most appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, this is not "relevant media". This is 7 minutes of completely irrelevant, non-notable, unreviewed, unsourced, maybe unfounded, out of public interest personal opinion that you push here into the public. The other video with drawing is nice, the drawing work in this video is also nice but the focus of this video is 7 minutes of chatter. Wikipedia cant give that person a platform to tell anybody his very personal opinion. It is exactly the same as writing a 4 printed pages == Personal opinion by Martin H. == section into the article (ok, maybe in a collapsible template..). That would be removed too. --Martin H. (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One could make that argument about any media file in an attempt to censor something against the POV of the individual user. That would, through extension, grant anyone the power to remove anything from Wikipedia, that they find personally objectionable. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every photo has some POV in lightning e.g.. Also writing an article has POV (style, wording, etc), however, that is the usual and I think the community works on improving the wording of articles and making a selection of images to keep it balanced. The whole text that became part of this article with the video inclusion in opposition is 7 minutes of personal talking of - see above, I repeat myself. --Martin H. (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a version of the same file with the audio removed be satisfactory to you? -- Cirt (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course yes. --Martin H. (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine.  Doing.... -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is ok untill 3:10, no need to make it too boring. --Martin H. (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 3:39 Id say. --Martin H. (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The original file at Commons will still need to be kept, in order to preserve the licensing chain of the derivative work from the original file. Can you please make a note at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draw Muhammad Day video by AwesomeSauceUK.ogv, removing your objection to keeping this file? Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, please see, [11]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I arrived so late to this discussion that there is already a green checkmark. I tend to disagree with Martin’s methods of accomplishing his ends (removals of content and AfDs of that which he has a distaste for) as it was too WP:BOLD for me. But I agree with his desired outcome: removal of the video from this article. In part, I back his reasoning. But I also have my own. Here are my thoughts:

1. The guy in the video starts out in a way that is boring and leads to the suspicion that he isn’t gonna be all that creative, enlightening, or amusing.
2. Seven whole minutes of video with narration exceeds much of Pat Condell’s work, and he’s actually quite clever and more entertaining.
3. I am rather expert in creating animations (like NURBS and this Theora video), and endeavor mightily to keep my file sizes small (3 MB and 682 KB respectively). I wrestle with the very notion of devoting 16 MB for this particular video (a bang-for-buck issue).
4. I agree with Martin: Wikipedia cant give that person a platform to tell anybody his very personal opinion. Mind you, I didn’t watch any more than the first 30 seconds of the video so I didn’t get past the part where he’s doing his cheery little “let’s draw a little mouth here…♬♩”-bit. I don’t care to watch all the way through it to see if his commentary was critical of Mohammed or the fine, fine gentlemen who advocate killing cartoonists; I don’t think Wikipedia should be in the business of giving him a Pat Condell-like soap box. The guy can post what he has to say on YouTube and get his own “channel” there for his devout following.
5. It is quite easy to judge simple, 2-D, static drawings of Mohammed as for whether they are in keeping with the spirit of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day as Molly Norris envisioned it. Once we head down the path of providing 16 MB YouTube channel-like soap boxes, we are going to get bogged down in bitter disputes over just the commentary due, largely, to Muslims feeling unnecessarily put upon and belittled. Vetting what videos are suitable is a damned slippery slope and we’d darn near need committees comprising beret-wearing connoisseurs of the fine arts (all of whom have keen insight into free-speech issues) to sit in judgement of the various contributions.
6. In short, this day is about Molly Norris’s vision and this article is about “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”; not “Everybody Talk About Mohammed Day.”

I suggest we remove all animations from this gallery and focus on providing only a simple, tasteful, eclectic mix of static drawings depicting Mohammed. This is how the civilized, English-speaking world demonstrates by example that the proper response to bad speech is better speech. Besides, this approach has the exceedingly important virtue of keeping the gallery more germane, topical, and encyclopedic to this topic. Greg L (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’ve taken the liberty of being as WP:BOLD as Martin H. and winnowed the gallery down to simple, static, 2-D images. I think this is in keeping with the narrow objective of ensuring the content of this article is germane, topical, and encyclopedic to this particular subject. I’m not going to editwar over this, but am pretty convinced I am right on this point and hope that by being bold, it will help to avoid future battles like this. Videos are quite unnecessary, are beyond (I think) the narrow confines of the subject matter, and are bound to be a continuing and utterly unnecessary source of friction—of that, I am sure. Greg L (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the videos. Please note that there is now a version without audio. There is no reason to remove videos of individuals drawing depictions - it is directly relevant, and the very subject of this article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I am a bit confused. The animations I removed were from this version of the article wherein that second video was the version with narration intact wherein the guy was attempting his *clever talking*. This was after the green checkmark was posted, above. I see that the galley now features a muted version where can be seen talking to the camera but one can’t hear his “hate talk” (or “stupid talk”, or “makes someone mad talk”, or whatever one wants to call it. What better way to make the point that “the proper response to bad speech is censorship. The end effect is profoundly underwhelming and I find it quite unfortunate and unnecessary. If you think the muted version of a narrated video with a guy facing the camera and his lips can be seen moving somehow enhances the article and Wikipedia, be my guest. I would, Cirt, suggest that if others delete that loony-looking thing, that cut them some slack. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it is a video of an individual drawing one of the depictions. You removed another video as well. That one had no audio from the very start. That was also inappropriate and seemingly on a whim without rationale. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of both certainly was with (ample) rationale as I made more than enough effort above to explain my reasoning that no animations belong here. My expansive reasoning exceeds the niceties of most edits that occur on Wikipedia. I won’t dignify your allegation that it was on a “whim”, Cirt. If you simply disagree with my edit and my clearly stated reasoning for it, then man-up; but please don’t give me a line about “inappropriate and seemingly on a whim without rationale.” I was perfectly willing to sit back and let you be a “good shepherd” of this article. But when you start having knee-jerk reactions like this, then it starts taking on a WP:OWN-flavor I find unsavory. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I rather agree that a video of a drawing being made—the stop-action-like one—is suitable. However, the one with the guy narrating straight into the camera but his words were censored out is a splendid advertisement for the discord that goes on as Wikipedia stumbles all over itself with edit wars. Its existence is an utter abomination unto the eyes of the encyclopedic gods and I have deleted it. If you, Cirt, want to restore it (again), have your way—I don’t claim ownership rights to this article. But you should know that some of your remedies to issues that have cropped up here (like Wikipedia is not banned in Pakistan, below) are beginning to look like you need to take one-day cool-down break from this article. Greg L (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that it was inappropriate of you to remove both videos, including the one that originally had no audio at all in the first place. It is most appreciated. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Media being removed from Commons

Although this is already being discussed on this page, for the sake of easy reference and hopefully wider participation I'll make links to two current undeletion reviews on Wikimedia Commons for media files related to EDMD that have been deleted there:

• Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Mohammed by meco.png (obivously related to a drawing by me).
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draw Muhammad Day video by AwesomeSauceUK.ogv

__meco (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I found the second one easily enough (it looked at the time that several editors from en.wiki had !voted keep). However, the first one is eluding me? Meco, could you check and repost the link (or hit me if I'm just being stoopid)? Thanks! TFOWR^propaganda 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Both these links are working fine from where I'm sitting. Are others having problems accessing either one? __meco (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, both fine for me too, now. I'm going to blame "caching". It's an excellent scapegoat for any problem on t'intarwebs ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 16:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan action against viewing Wikipedia

Multiple independent reliable secondary sources report this. Please do not remove it from the article, as it is now sourced to many different WP:RS sources. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the page still up?

The link to the FB page just takes you to the FB home page now. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, are any secondary sources reporting on this supposed development? -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for secondary sources but what does this link show you? 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a primary source, not secondary. Would first need to know if secondary WP:RS sources have reported on this. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter has complaints of it being down as of 6 minutes ago and I know it's not RS but can't expect ABC News to be on this within minutes. twitter It's only been unavailable to me for 12 minutes. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well perhaps secondary sources will be reporting on this soon. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It was down for 30 minutes about 10 hours ago for traffic load and it's 7pm CST in America so it maybe traffic again. About 14 people on the 100k+ liked opposing page say it's down for them too I'll wait 30 minutes. If it comes back then I guess just delete this whole talk section. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, isn't the opposing page with more likes than the other notable to the article? 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest some independent reliable secondary sources that discuss these issues. -- Cirt (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Both the primary and sister pages are down, which should mean that either Facebook was hacked or, more likely, bowed to pressure from Muslim protestors. The WordPress blog also looks to have been hacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.94.142 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A page called Everybody Draw Muhammad Day - Resurrected was put up and in minutes removed. I'm not sure what is happening (hacking or Facebook owners) but it's deliberate. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that indeed sounds curious. Hopefully we will get secondary sources on that shortly. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the administrators of the original facebook group was a victim of being hacked, and the hacker used his access to shut down the page and the blog. The sister page is still up and can be found here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammad-Day-May-20th-2010/120352401315688

I expect some sort of press coverage coming soon. (Sorry if the formatting isn't correct, I'm still new to wiki) PrimalSpazz (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the new incarnation. An Islamic site is claiming May 20th Everybody Introduce Prophet Muhammad Day 97.85.185.160 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope these primary sources will give great search strings to later find secondaries. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's website domain was supposedly hijacked: this is how it reads now. I took a photo of it and will upload because this will most likely be temporary situation. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what license to give it... 97.85.185.160 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't really upload it and put it in this article anyways, unless it has been significantly reported on in independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well there it is for 7 days and I'm thinking someone will report on a cybercrime around a news day like this. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that image isn't necessary since Wayback machine has it archived. The site is live but circumstances could chance quickly. Alatari (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The original Facebook group was restored today. A post on the wall explained that one of the moderators had his email and Skype accounts hacked and deleted the page out of fear for his safety. I updated the external link in the article.Number3son (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is back up today (Following the link from Wiki), but when I search for the group on Facebook search, it does not come up. Hrmm. Yearsago (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not banned in Pakistan

I asked a journalist friend in Pakistan to confirm reports that Wikipedia is banned there - she reports quite firmly that it is not. Our article repeats this apparent untruth based on a report in Fast Company which cites a Bloomberg story which doesn't mention Wikipedia, and this associated press story which says "The regulatory body said it has blocked more than 450 Internet links containing offensive material. It is unclear how many of the links were blocked in the last two days. Access to the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia and the photo sharing site Flickr also was restricted Thursday."

I have not yet confirmed the details, but it seems likely to me that rather than saying that Wikipedia has been banned (it hasn't been) we may want to follow the AP story more directly. Notice that the AP says "450 links" and Fast Company says "450 websites" - it seems possible that some pages of Wikipedia are blocked/filtered in Pakistan (such as this article, for example) but the entire website is certainly not blocked.

Although of course we shouldn't get involved here in original reporting, perhaps some reporters from Wikinews could be asked to do some legwork to find local people in Pakistan to give a detailed report on access to Wikipedia at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. I read yesterday that access to Wikipedia in Pakistan was “spotty”. I don’t know if that meant the en.Wikipedia-version or not. Perhaps the spottiness might only have been a bandwidth issue given the intense interest in the subject. I’ll get the citation… Greg L (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Associated Press: Muslim anger prompts Pakistan to block Facebook. The quote there:

“ Wikipedia's English-language site and the Flickr photo-sharing site were also sporadically unavailable Friday. ”

Greg L (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Fast Company, (Pakistan Blocks Blasphemic YouTube and Wikipedia as Facebook Considers Solutions) doesn’t appear to be a news provider with the sort of resources necessary to provide reliable and authoritative worldwide news coverage. The Associated Press (a RS with reporters on scene) reported en.Wikipedia as being “sporadically unavailable.” This can be explained simply as overwhelmed servers on a day of intense interest in this subject. Such sporadic access could have easily been falsely interpreted locally as an official mandate by the Pakistani government to block access. Until a truly WP:RS can be found clarifying this one way or another, this article mustn’t pass along conjecture about ‘Wikipedia being banned’ as a matter of fact. Greg L (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell poking around various forums and the like wikipedia was blocked but not for very long.©Geni 16:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Or “was unavailable but not for very long” ; only Pakistani government authorities and ISPs can discern between “blocked” and “swamped servers.” Greg L (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The latter gives you a 404 error while the former gives you shot site unavailible message.©Geni 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. It looks like we need an RS on this then. Greg L (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Added a bunch more info from lots of independent reliable secondary sources. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but your solution:

“ Pakistan restricted access to Wikipedia and banned viewing of certain pages on the website in the country on May 20, 2010, according to Fast Company, The New York Times, Radio France Internationale, The Express Tribune, The Washington Post, Computer World, Newsweek, Agence France-Presse, and the Financial Times. Agence France-Presse noted… ”

…seems odd with all those citation sources in the main text like that instead of the standard technique of showing only a series of superscripted citations in a row. An article on drawing Mohammed hardly benefits from a link to Computer World magazine. What you resorted to above has that “neener-neener… eat this” –flavor of an editor feeling under siege. I would suggest you revise it to give it the more conventional treatment. I think this is simply a case of another editor (Jimbo of all people) having heard otherwise. Thanks, nevertheless, for digging up the ample evidence that Wikipedia was briefly blocked in Pakistan. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, for acknowledging the research put into this. It is most appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don’t be glib now, Cirt. I am also here to help. We will not always see eye to eye. Your extraordinary efforts here are not lost on anyone and a tacit understanding amongst the wikipedian community is to afford a good shepherd of an article a great deal of latitude. Good shepherds invariably have the best understanding of the subject matter as well as the article’s treatment of the subject. Others recognize the good that comes to Wikipedia by listening carefully to what a good shepherd has to say. But a good shepherd also has to listen carefully to what others are saying because everyone else in the wikipedian community technically has every bit as much a right to edit this article as you. “Good shepherd” is a status that is earned; it is not an entitlement conferred upon an editor because they spent boat-loads of time contributing to an article.

I have a parable for you. I saw a movie back in ‘86 called The Emerald Forest. It’s quite good; you should watch it some time. It’s about an American engineer working on a hydro project in the Amazon. An indigenous tribe stole his seven-year-old son. The tribe’s chief adopted the boy. Ten years later, his father tracks his son—now 17 and in a committed relationship with a girl from a neighboring tribe—and his son doesn’t want to come back “home” with him; the jungle is his home. The engineer appealed to the tribe’s chief and asked that the chief order the boy to just *visit* the city with his father and see what it’s like. The chief responded (in his native tongue—one had to read the captions) “If a chief tried to tell a man to do what he doesn’t want to do, he wouldn’t be chief.”

I appreciate that you did not put that horrid, censored-voice video back; Wikipedia clearly looks better with it gone. And, FWIW, I still find your above-quoted über citation technique tactic to be, uhm… un-chief-like. Greg L (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no need for such spouting of vitriol directed against a single other contributor. Does not foster a positive collaborative editing environment. Especially in the face of the efforts I have contributed to this article to improve its quality and add information from multiple sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It’s simple: If you want to enjoy the privileges of being a gate-keeper-like good shepherd of this article (the good side of WP:OWN), then you need to do a better job of listening to what others are saying. Comprende? Now… you aren’t going to get anywhere complaining about my criticism of your performance here as of late. I suggest you move on and heed my advise; read that advise again and let it sink in if you still feel all confused and indignant. Greg L (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Demographics?

This article is remarkably comprehensive, but here's one piece of missing information that it would be useful to include: does anyone know the demographics of participants in this protest? That is, what countries the people taking part came from? I get the impression from reading the article that, though this was an international event, the participants were primarily from the United States (and perhaps secondarily from Scandinavia), but it would be nice to have some actual figures. Of course, to work that out ourselves would be original research, but if anyone's done the research already then we can report it. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the major problem with trying to answer such a question is how to make it remotely scientific. If one were to judge based on user contributions to this article on en.Wikipedia, the contributions would be heavily skewed towards those countries whose citizens speak English as a first language. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day! has precious little—if any—organized backing and is an ad-hoc, grass roots event that, like Kwanzaa, can be traced to a modern-day living person (Maulana Karenga in the case of Kwanzaa). There is no central repository for contributions or even a group of repositories. I suspect most drawings of Mohammed created within two days of May 20th were in the form of e-mails shared within close-knit pen pan circles. I can certainly, for example, imagine no local TV stations asking their viewers to send in their creations. I should imagine the only way your question could be answered is by a having Gallup-style poll scientifically performed. I can’t imagine anyone sponsoring (funding) such an endeavor. But, if such a poll were done, and the results are published, then we would have non-original research found in a reliable source to which we can cite. Greg L (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If research revealed independent reliable secondary sources reporting on demographics, we could then include that in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt and Greg L. It's only to be included if there are reliable secondary sources who cite the primary source who did the study. Also, that doesn't mean that any "scientific" info should be added if a secondary source uses it. It should only be included if the primary source is also reliable (i.e. an actual scientific study done by professionals and not a poll on Facebook, CNN, etc.). I have quite a bit of experience with such studies so I can help determine the quality of findings given they arise (which I highly doubt). OlYeller^Talktome 19:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a year or so, and first academic articles may be published by then. Although to be safe, 2 years is a better bet... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

• 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)

AS OF 2010 May 20, 4:30 pm MDT, the facebook photo page for the event "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" had 16,044 pictures on it, and was increasing by about 10 pictures every minute. There are obvious attempts to swamp the page with many identical pics, apparently in defense of Islam. Friendly Person (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We should go by secondary sources, and not primary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this being the discussion page, not the article, it is better to provide data than not provide it, even if it's not up to snuff in format etc. I think the article should somehow capture real data on numbers of M cartoons posted on the net. Friendly Person (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can suggest some independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Deletion

Facebook page has been giving "Invalid URL" for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" since 18:50 CST and has not come back up. Several other "replacement" groups have popped up during this time. It appears that the group is deleted for good.

Shouran (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page has been restored by Facebook on May 22.

Shouran (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

the authors deleted it .. i was able to read the official statement minutes before its deletion and it was because there had been too many unfit images (quote "porn", "hate", ..) i dont have a source except my memory.. :) --Fairychild (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This started in 2006 - CDR Salamander

A web site called drawmuhammed.com was alive in 2006 and actively collecting pictures of Muhammad as a means of free speech protest. Alatari (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CDR Salamander (who's blog is used as sources in many Wikipedia articles) is connected to the beginnings of this day. The history part of his blog and connected website are based on primary sources so I just stated facts and tried my absolute best to keep causation out. His blog is connected to May 20 FB protest in google in several spots. Haven't found an interview or other secondary source for his involvement. He does attribute the idea to other anonymous artists. There was 12 sister sites with possible information. I'm not surprised this movement can be traced back to 2006. Alatari (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is WP:NOR violation. We should avoid primary sources that fail WP:RS, and focus on finding research from secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a mute point. Secondary sources (Brussels newspaper and BBC news plus others) are available. Alatari (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I have not been feeling too well lately, and I admit that I have overreacted with some of my recent comments. Greg L (talk · contribs) has requested that I refrain from posting to his user talk page, and so I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize to him for that, as well as to the readers of this talk page. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• No worries, mate. I enjoy collaborating here and see that it hasn’t always been easy for you here given the huge investment of time you’ve devoted to improving Wikipedia. Looking foward then… Greg L (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much. Again, I am sorry. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely beautiful. I have not payed enough attention to your activities the last couple of days to have any notion of what it is you are sorry for, however, it has long been my perception that you are an editor of the highest class. I can only think how wonderful it would be to be working on Wikipedia if a lot more editors displayed this kind of self-insight and humility towards their fellows and their work and the project. __meco (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Now if only everyone could work out their problems like this. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources and WP:NOR violations

Please do not add primary sources. Please do not add violations of WP:NOR to this article's page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed if used carefully. Quoted straight from WP:NOR ... though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.. I made no interpretations of those sources and there was no (that I could find) secondary sources to that information. What exactly is the problem with these editions?:

• On January 31st 2006 a blogger under the pseudonym CDR Salamander started a blog titled Draw Mohammed Week His first entry was Let's get this party started!!! and in his/her own words stated the idea of a Draw Muhammad Week:

  Other cartoonists, however, who have asked to remain anonimous(sic), think that Western artist should not allow themselves to be intimidated and propose an international “Draw Muhammad Week.”

• In February 2006, during unrest following the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, a web site opened dedicated to drawing Mohammad. The site was at www.drawmuhammed.com and collected depictions of Muhammad. The site pronounced it's support of free speech and refusal to censor submissions accept if the submission had no relation to Muhammad. The Jyllandsposten pictures of 2005 were prominently displayed at the bottom and other submission upwards. The site linked back to CDR Salamander's blog. This site lasted till June 15th 2006 by which time it had gathered 550 submissions, 2683 comment, 12 related sites and had 905k views.
• When the site went back into service in July it's page was replaced with that from a Tim for Islam of Cyber-Warrior.org claiming to have hacked the site. This is slightly modified since then. However CDR Salamander's blog, Draw Mohammed Week, is still current and has content relating to the May 20th Draw Mohammad Day. Alatari (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alatari, I noticed that Cirt cited the right guideline (WP:NOR) but didn’t quite hit the nail on the head with his explanation. The issue is not one of “no original research.” Nor is it one of quoting from “primary sources” (such as culling material from a federal indictment paper, which is more of an issue with biographies of living persons anway). Rather, the problem lies with quoting blogs. The World Wide Web makes it too easy to find whatever POV-pushing slant one would like to find. This underlies one of the primary reasons for our spelling out what is considered to be a “primary source” HERE at #Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Blogs by non-notable people aren’t regarded as “primary sources”; instead, they are regarded as not a reliable source. Please don’t add items to the article than is only citable to op-ed pieces and blogs unless they were written by well-recognized and notable individuals or authors with a history of having their work picked up by reliable secondary sources. Greg L (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you reviewed all the sources. The archive copies are very hard to tamper with and clearly show a website named drawmuhammed.com where people were uploading cartoon pictures of Muhammed. The owners of the website are there and the site is for Draw Muhammed Week. This is not a blog but historical evidence from the Wayback Machine. Blogs can be used in certain instances and in this case it's not what the blogger claims but historical eveidence that the phrase "Draw Muhammed Week" was used in 2006. They Wayback Machine can't be easily tampered with and it again shows that the blog used that phrasing in 2006. Alatari (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. And please, Alatari, be sure to sign your posts with four tildes. Your above post was unsigned. Greg L (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I did sign it. I didn't consider the reposted text necessary to sign since I had signed in my comments. But if it bothers you so much I'll move the signature :) Alatari (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

With this particular issue regarding the above proposed text, it appears the entire thing is both primary sourced and fails WP:RS. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, usage of primary sources IS allowed if used carefully. I am reading and quoted straight from WP:RS above. Also, is the Wayback Machine a primary source or a secondary source? This is unclear. I also submitted the information to news sites and we'll see if a secondary source takes up this Draw Muhammed Week from 2006. Given the results from the Wayback Machine it's obvious that this didn't start with South Park or Norris. Alatari (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• We can close this discussion and move onto wording. A Brussels newspaper in 2006 has the exact quote CDR has on his first entry about anonymous artists wanting to start a Draw Muhammed Week centered around May 20th. Other world news sources exist because in reaction to CDR Salamander's blog Pakistan blocked the entire blogspot.com website and 11 others because of the reprint of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon. The BBC Urdu edition published the Pakistani government's hitlist drawmuhammed.com site is # 1 on the list and # 4 is CDR Salamander's blog. Because of the entire block on blogspot in reaction the dbtb.org or Don't Block the Blog organization of Pakistani bloggers was formed. There formation is described here (is this RS?) and they are mention in 2006 in Reporter Without Borders article. This Pakistan wiki at wikia site (not a RS) has a list of sources. Alatari (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that seems like WP:NOR violation and WP:SYNTH. -- Cirt (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that in anyway a WP:NOR violation when it's reliable secondary sources? As for WP:SYNTH, the sources state that Draw Muhammed Week in May around the 20th was proposed in 2006. Where is the conclusion that you consider SYNTH? Please be specific in your criticisms. Alatari (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Pakistan restricts access to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia

Someone please, please, break up the paragraphs in this section so that it is readable. This is really basic stuff, people.71.96.224.30 (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook against EDMD image

I think that we should also show an image (images) by those opposing this event. I find the image here (direct jpg link) to be most informative. We could upload it under fair use, and/or somebody could contact the creator and ask for a free license. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Should stick to things significantly discussed in secondary sources, not primary. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, we are talking about images here. It's not like we usually use images from secondary sources - those are most often not free anyway. The article does mention anti-EDMD FB groups, and that mention is referenced with proper sources, yes? So now we should try to illustrate this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, perhaps you can try to contact individuals to get images submitted under a free use license. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Fbook forums for both for and against EDMD groups, asking them to upload freely licensed images to Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely you should be WP:Bold and post images that counter it. A section on the controversy/counter measures is appropriate for the article. of course that is if a free image is available. There no requirement per Cirt that we stick to secondary/primary sources. as cited WIkipedia is not censored and hence it should be here too.Lihaas (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's EDMD page was hacked and is gone again

Ali Hassan answered Andy's Skype phone when Jewish Business Mag called. Facebook restored the page but it is gone again. I have not found and RS detailing the new situation. The blogosphere suggests that the overload of constantly deleting FB violating posts from 109k users was too much for Andy and coadmins to handle so it was voluntary. Alatari (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a protest against Islamists who threaten violence against individuals that attempt to depict Muhammad" Can't this lead be a bit more neutral? I think we can find a better substitute for "threaten" and "violence." Mar4d (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing sounds like a rant to me Mar4d (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we quote the event's organisers? Something like:

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a protest against "X".<ref>[http://www.example.com Comment on organisers' website: "X"]</ref>

N.B. precise quote enclosed in quotation marks, semi-obvious (from ref) that it's a quote.

? TFOWR^propaganda 12:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006.jpg

Protesters holding up signs outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006.

IMO, the word “threaten” is encyclopedic and appropriate given the fact that a $1,000,000 bounty were offered to anyone who kills an offending cartoonist. (here). That article translates as follows:

“ In Pakistan, about 2,000 demonstrated right against the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. A doll of President Bush were burned along with American, Danish, Norwegian, Italian and Israeli flags.

During the demonstration promised the president of Bar Association Bar Association, a bounty of one million dollars to anyone who kills one of cartoonists. The association was backed by the Islamic party Jamaat-i- Islami, which is the second largest party in the Pakistani koaltionsregering.

There has previously been made bounty on the Danish cartoonists, but here amounts were much smaller. In December, having offered a reward 50,000 kr of Jamaat-e-Islami and its youth organization. Subsequently however, denied the party to stand behind the bounty.

”

And that wasn’t the only person offering bounties. So I’m not seeing a problem with “threaten.” The alternative word, “Promise” would have been unencyclopedic, IMHO. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah this helps paint Islamists as mentally stable, don't it? *rolling eyes and all that* HalfShadow 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia is here for "painting" pretty pictures from events. 69.244.125.35 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Marek

Lead length

The lead is too long. Simple 1 para on the event and anotehr on the cotnroversy would suffice. the details are for the article. The current intro goes into background which is suited for background/history section, no need to mention the whole details. Heck the whole lead here is history/background. Instead a breif summation of the issue and the controversy is better. Lihaas (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the entire article. It should actually be expanded upon, not reduced. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, upon a challenge consensus must be gained, if you want to discuss the issue then we work on consensus. no need for an arbitrary revert to start an edit war (3 mins is not consensus)

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." All the lead does as i've said above is discuss the history; alternatively mention the topic, brief summation of the history (not 3 paras), and controversy/pak reactions.

"summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies" + "the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article."(Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)).

See below. -- Cirt (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

see waht below...there are 30+ sections below this?(Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the entire gallery original research?

I believe the entire gallery should be omitted from the article as original research. There is nothing to it other than a random collection of non-notable drawings from flickr. I think any drawings chosen for inclusion in the article should be notable in some way - i.e. at a bare minimum mentioned in a news report about this topic, created for this event by a notable artist, etc. Without that, the images add nothing encyclopedic to the article, but are rather just exactly what they are: non-notable drawings from flickr.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us pose a similar query: Is the selection of which pictures to use for the article Masturbation original research? -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is not a good example, as it brings up a wide range of unrelated issues, in both directions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave this some more thought, and come up with a better example, one which doesn't bring up as many unrelated issues. "Is the selection of which pictures to use for the article Eiffel Tower original research?" The point is that to understand what the Eiffel Tower is, you need to see pictures of it. In the case of this article, you do not need to see the pictures to understand the article. The original cartoon which sparked this event - that's important to understanding it. A more or less random selection of non-notable flickr images is not helpful at all to understanding the subject matter of this article. It could be (and, let's be honest here, in this case probably actually is) the result, instead, of POV-pushing, i.e. a gratuitous expression of support for the concept behind the "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" meme.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a result of pictures on such websites, sites, including Flickr, were banned in Pakistan. Such pictures are indeed, directly relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan banned flickr not because of these exact pictures, but what they are supposed to depict. I mean by which conception you've selected pictures to post in the article? Why not different pictures that are on flickr? Why these?Userpd (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because they are free use licensed. -- Cirt (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Won't there be copyright issues if we used these: [12] -- or could they be used under fair use? Otherwise, no other notable artist or news report dared to print examples (that I could find). Otherwise, Wales makes a fair argument against the inclusion of the Flickr images. However, I do see many many examples of user generated photographs that are included simply because they are offered for free. For instance, this photo is used as an example of the New antisemitism -- however, it is user generated. How do we know it is real? How do we know it is from a "Protest in Edinburgh"? Or hasn't been Photoshopped? I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFF may be the counterargument but there are thousands of examples and I don't believe that policy has been absolutely clear about the use of such images -- unlike the text of articles where policies such as WP:RS, WP:A etc. are mostly unambiguous. Which images should be attributed to a reliable source? I don't believe it is clear. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You raise some good points, especially with the example regarding the use of File:Protests_Edinburgh_10_1_2009_5.JPG in the article New antisemitism, most interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the "Eiffel Tower" argument be applicable here? The pictures selected illustrate the spirit of the event/meme. Although there were many overtly anti-Islamic pictures posted on Facebook, the intent of the event was not anti-Islamic and these pictures represent that idea. Without examples, the reader may be left with the wrong impression. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this comment by User:Therefore. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example of a reliably sourced cartoon (on top of the 3 rather clever Reason Magazine cartoons I linked above. This cartooon was done byZapiro which was run in the Mail & Guardian.[13] I'm not expert at Wikipedia's Fair Use policy to see if these four cartoons may be included. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the midst of doing some additional research on the secondary source coverage around that one. -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple more: Mark Fiore's cartoon who publishe in the SFGate.com among others.[14]. Here is a CNN cartoon. A Catholic Online example.

FWIW, The Zapira cartooon caused controversy which probably should be included.[15] There are several other sources covering this one. In fact the offered an apology.[16] ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This image from 2006 was used as their logo. Is there rational to use it? Alatari (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, would you challenge that the pictures in the article Masturbation are not what their description says ? I don't think so, because it's evident enough not to require that a secondary source confirms it. However, it's not as evident that the drawings in this article are indeed representative of this event. We're not entitled to determine that, the secondary sources do that for us, hence drawings at least need to have been discussed by RS in relation to this event. Doing otherwise, with editors putting what they think is representative of this event as opposed to the secondary sources, would introduce original research. Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, the depictions of Mohammed in the gallery come from Commons, and the images there came from contributors from many walks of life, hailing from all over the world. Commons is the only source of free images we will be able to draw from in the foreseeable future. I think the only reason we have dueling wikiguidlines being bandied about regarding this gallery is because of its religiously provocative overtones; that can’t be helped.

  Speaking to the issue of “which” pictures are to be featured in the gallery, that is a matter of choice, or selection, or editorial decision—whatever one wants to call it. One might say that “choosing” pictures is WP:OR or censorship. I disagree. As wikipedians, we make “choices” all the time as to whether body text in articles is germane, topical, and encyclopedic. Accompanying illustrations are often a matter of choice in order to better illustrate the subject, just as the words we write are a matter of choice (by community consensus in a collaborative writing enviroment, where there is bound to be disagreement).

  We currently have a ten-point metric for choosing suitable pictures for the gallery that seems to have community consensus for being fair and sensible. Since the gallery is hidden and requires the reader to click the [show] button, I’m just not seeing a proper basis for concern here. There is simply no way a reader should claim to be “offended” if they have to A) seek out this article, and then B) click a [show] button knowing full well the general nature of what to expect. Frankly, I wish there was a [show] button for the illustrations in our Vulva article—doing so would spare many of our readers some unexpected shock. Note too that somehow (beats me) the community decided that that particular picture of a vulva properly and best illustrated the subject. That picture too, was drawn from Commons, here, because it was a free-use image.

  It appears to me the community has gone out of its way to ensure everything that can be done, has been done to keep our Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article from being needlessly offensive to religious sensibilities. Greg L (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the page would be better served if we followed Wales' advice and included the seven published examples (3 from Reason, 1 from Mail & Guardian (w/ text describing the controversy), 1 from Fiore, 1 from CNN and 1 from Catholic Online). I say that because they exist. Without them, it was arguably proper (if not exactly following WP policy) to include the Flickr images. But since there are images that third party WP:RSs have deemed notable, it would be better to use them. Their editorial decisions should trump ours. They would fall under the Fair Use policy of WP. (And FWIW, since it is OT, I completely disagree with the Vulva comment -- entirely contrary to WP:CENSOR. But that is for another day. ;) ) Oh, Greg L, could you please not indent in a non-standard fashion (using an asterisk) -- it makes the page a bit more unreadable. Thanks! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem making the gallery more eclectic and tasteful and with varying stylistic interpretations by including drawings from a wider variety of original sources. If they meet all the other requirements of the ten-point list (are free-use; don’t go out of their way to unnecessarily insult Mohammed, Islam, or Mohammed; and are added to Commons and tagged to appear in the category), then then that’s great. But if some of the images used by other RS sources are needlessly insulting, then we should first have a clear community consensus to revise the ten-point list to strip out point #5 (candidate entries critical of Mohammed, Islam, or religion are regarded as unnecessary provocative, are not in keeping with the subject matter, and shall not be included).

  Some might object that making such selective judgements amounts to “censorship”. To that sort of argument, I would point to point #3 of the list: Wikipedia and this article’s gallery is not a free-for-all community [graffiti] wall for contributors to assert their free-speech rights; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In exactly the same vein as how wikipedians endlessly argue about what is the most appropriate prose for body text in our articles (even though the dueling text all originates from different RSs), so too holds for deciding what images best illustrate the subject matter. Wikipedia is rife with arguments over whether different RSs properly give undo prominence to one point of view over another. Just because images smack of “art” is zero excuse for donning a beret and whipping out a copy of the Magna Carta before advancing some sort of argument that Art©™® is some special class of content that magically strips wikipedians of our ability to choose what we think is appropriate for inclusion in our articles and how we have magically entered into some new territory where we must adopt any RS image whenever some wikipedian dredges one up—no matter how offensive it might be (a lit bomb under Mohammed’s turban, for instance). I find such logic to be utterly bankrupt and fallacious.

  So, in a nutshell, the current ten-point litmus test that has so-far achieved community consensus is that even though RSs might include images that are extra-offensive to Islam, we don’t want them here. If you want to add more images to Commons so we have a more extensive and varied selection from which to choose, great. If you want to include images in the gallery here that are needlessly critical of Mohammed, Islam, or religion in general, then first rally others to see your point of view and achieve a community consensus to revise the ten-point list.

  Finally, as I’ve mentioned before, this point of view comes from an atheist; I favor no one religion over another. I simply think one can find RSs to buttress any point one wants to make when writing body text and the wikipedian community has every right to decide that we don’t want to be needlessly provocative. I’m simply not buying any argument that because some editor comes along who dredged up an RS with an offensive image, the community is somehow powerless to apply pre-agreed upon rules gauging its suitability. I’m not buying that one for one second. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  
  P.S. Quoting you, User:Therefore: I believe that the page would be better served if we followed Wales' advice and included the seven published examples (3 from Reason, 1 from Mail & Guardian (w/ text describing the controversy), 1 from Fiore, 1 from CNN and 1 from Catholic Online). Jimbo was suggesting we look towards more notability than Flickr; he wasn’t proposing the specific seven drawings you cited. I have zero problems with the basic premiss of Jimbo’s suggestion. If you want the seven additions featured in the gallery, I suggest you ensure they are free-use, are added the Commons category, and that they abide by the other requirements of the ten-point list. If all that is done, I can’t imagine why we can’t use them in the gallery. Greg L (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The gallery is indeed original research in this article, as I argued in this section; if this were an article about 'contemporary drawings of Mohammed', then it would not be, but here the article is about the event and its consequences (which makes comparison with, for example, masturbation bogus). Users should not display the pictures they think, based on their research or from their point of view is representative of this event, this is the job of secondary sources. There are plenty of pictures out there which have been the subject of reliable secondary sources, some probably have a free license. But those currently there should be removed per application of content policies. Cenarium (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • At present the gallery is displaying the majority of available free use images that are available. That really is the main criteria, first and foremost. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Cenarium, your views are just that: Your views. They are not shared by the consensus view here. Whereas you might be right and the consensus is wrong, Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. Your arguments about how There are plenty of pictures out there is of little practical value if they can’t be used on Wikipedia since most of the links people have been providing, above, are to copyrighted sources. With regard to your some probably have a free license, if you know of free ones or ones covered under a GNU license, go get them and put them into the Commons category (via the proper tag) and they will be considered for inclusion in the gallery. Your voice will have as much weight as that of others here in deciding which depictions best help illustrate the subject matter. The current guidelines governing the gallery and the Commons category are at Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. Those guidelines are transcluded above, here at #Metric for choosing additions to the gallery of depictions of Mohammed.
    Greg L (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree somewhat with Jimbo and Cenarium. We should focus on images that have been picked as representative in secondary sources. If the images aren't free, we can use a "fair use" rationale and host them here in WP. The publications reproducing them evidently used the same rationale; what is fair for them is fair for us. --JN466 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• As to your The publications reproducing them evidently used the same rationale; what is fair for them is fair for us, (*sigh*)… I wish things worked that way on Wikipedia. Go take it up with Wikipedia’s attorneys. The requirements for images are clearly spelled out in the upload page; you can fight your “fair use” battles there. Secondary sources are invariably copyrighted. If you know how to persuade secondary sources to release them into the public domain or with a free license, more power to you. Add them to Commons and they can be used here. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no need to rely on Commons images alone. The publications publishing cartoons posted on the EDMD facebook page are not the copyright holders; the artists are. We use thousands of copyrighted images in Wikipedia under fair use rationales; every album cover is an example. --JN466 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I’m not going to argue copyright and fair-use issues with you. If you know of a suitable image, go get it. Upload it to Commons. And make sure you are fully complying with Wikipedia’s licensing requirements. If you make a “fair-use” argument that doesn’t hold water, the image will be deleted soon enough by those who better appreciate Wikimedia’s legal requirements. Goodbye. P.S. Your fair-use rationale wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance of hell of sticking. That’s just the way it is. I fully well understand that you don’t understand the distinctions—but, believe me. Been there – Done that – Bought the tee-shirt. Greg L (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• The two images used outside the gallery are FU. One more FU image could be acceptable, it would depend. Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Greg, you don't seem to appreciate that you CANNOT upload fair-use images to Wikimedia Commons, but you CAN upload them to Wikipedia. Commons requires all images to be free; Wikipedia does not. Many images shown in Wikipedia articles are not hosted on Commons, but in Wikipedia. This applies to all fair-use images displayed in Wikipedia. So the invitation for me to upload a fair-use image to Commons is one I shall not follow. --JN466 01:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no community consensus for those 'ten points', three or four people have agreed with some of the points, for a few days there's been no objection, hard to call that consensus especially that now there are objections. We're not required to show drawings in any case, and we should not if they fail content policies, even it means we can't show any image. The article has already one representative picture with a valid FU though, in addition to the original poster. This illustrates sufficiently well the event. A few more pictures would be okay, if they didn't fail content policies such as OR, which apply to all content including images. See WP:OI, the images clearly fail that, as it is implied that those images represent this event (otherwise they would have no place here), which isn't verifiable (as opposed to, for example, a picture of a person masturbating, who would challenge that ?) and is an original claim, and there are also obvious OR in the captions. Cenarium (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• That’s your opinion. Which is wrong. The ten-point list is supported by Greg L, Cirt, OlYeller, and JohnWBarber. You don’t like it. That’s a consensus on Wikipedia. Consensus is not 100% of editors being in full agreement and never was. And by the way, I like the way you provided a link to WP:OI (original research) in that “I made it blue so it must be true”-fashion. The key nugget of what is really there reads as follows: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. I find arguments that drawings here depicting Mohammed that were contributed by people from all over the globe amounts to “unpublished ideas or arguments” to be beyond fallacious. Greg L (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've only been here as a reader of this article, but I strongly disagree with this proposal, notably the point about excluding the most offensive images, which I feel is a direct attack on NPOV. I didn't go through all the reams of pictures on that site, but if it includes cartoons of Muhammed giving a blowjob then we should include such a sample (if available) — otherwise we are misrepresenting what happened, for both sides. There are at least three proposals better than this multi-point proposal:

1. Try to agree on a representative gallery that gives a fair idea of the variety of images that were present. This only works if we could come up with a real consensus on what is representative of the facts.It could be doable - but perhaps not, based on this conversation.
2. Try to use a gallery of sourced images that have appeared somewhere, which is the established Wikipedia way when the going gets tough.
3. Just kill the damnable gallery altogether. It's better not to include it and to say you couldn't work out which images to include than to put up some biased coverage. This is the alternative to be preferred if people here can't work up the courage to put up fair use images for the sourced examples. If you only include free images, then the link to Wikimedia Commons is sufficient.

Wnt (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, as we, oh-so-civilized wikipedians argue over such niceties as how one includes a truly broad spectrum of images of Mohammed here without violating copyrights, let’s keep in mind that Molly Norris was trying to encourage copious Western-style speech; you know—the sort that civilized societies engage in. All this, in order to demonstrate that the proper response to bad speech is better speech. Molly believed this to be preferable to kooks offering $100,000 bounties on the head of Lars Vilks in hopes he might one day join the ranks of Theo Van Gogh. As we debate—with little finger held out as we sip our Earl Grey tea—the fine nuances of how best to ensure this article is encyclopedic, let’s try not to loose sight of importance of our freedoms.

  The Ahmadiyya (a particular Muslim sect) seem to have a point when they think a prophet who came after Mohammed, preached how “to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace.” Those who disagreed with *such crazy talk* killed 98 of them last week to show them just how wrong they are. (*sigh*) Yes… the topic of this article is much more than just about “depictions of Mohammed”; it is about opposing the mindset that violence is a legitimate response to sectarian disagreements.

  I am in full agreement with Jimbo; we need to ensure that the gallery is as eclectic as possible. To whatever extent possible, we should endeavor to cull drawings from as many secondary sources as we can so long as doing so can be accomplished without violating copyrights and/or Wikimedia’s rules governing intellectual property. I hope we have hundreds of contributions to choose from at Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Greg L (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I want some kind of agreed-upon standard for inclusion of pictures, and I wouldn't mind if it were more restrictive than what we have now -- but the last thing I want is to have no standards and therefore multiple disagreements (and mischief) over various pictures in the future. If we could limit the pictures here to pics that have been referred to in secondary sources, and if we can get those pics past the copyright patrollers, then I'd support that as a standard here. If we can't do that, then I support the standard that Greg L has drawn up and revised. I've always been very uncomfortable with aspects of the subject that would offend just about any Muslim, and a bit uncomfortable with any pictures, because some good people would be offended. A standard demanding secondary sourcing is more likely to limit the damage. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Any picture, even if reproduced in secondary sources, will be the intellectual property of the original artist, rather than the publication publishing it. Pictures subject to fair use cannot be uploaded to Commons, but can be uploaded as a file in Wikipedia, provided a cogent fair-use rationale is supplied. Such a fair-use rationale will only "stick" for notable pictures, i.e. pictures that have been the subject of comment in secondary sources. Reason's top three might qualify, for example. --JN466 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to try to get the other ones uploaded and we'll find out if a fair-use rationale flies. If it works, it'll be great for the article and you've got my support for a stricter standard based on whether secondary-sources have commented on the particular image. I'm sure Reason's pics have been commented on, and certainly the South African cartoonist's have. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who ever heard of truly Reliable Sources that don’t claim copyright to what is featured in their print magazines or Web sites? If we want to have images from RSs added to the Commons category and added to this article’s gallery, then those editors advocating that point simply need to get cracking and (somehow) get such images (properly) added to Commons. Arguments that images from wikipedians are inherently WP:OR are inherently wrong because WP:OI makes it clear that they are not original research “so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments”. I am, nevertheless, entirely supportive of the objective of adding images from RSs; I just suspect they are going to be far and few between unless someone has a lot of persuasive powers with the editors at some of these RSs. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg, please note that we cannot upload fair-use pictures to Wikimedia Commons. Fair-use pictures can only be uploaded to Wikipedia, using "Upload file" on the left of this screen, and selecting "Image from a website" (the relevant instruction is: "Some non-free images may be used under a claim of fair use. This is only acceptable for images that are not replaceable, meaning that no free alternative could reasonably be created. In general, fair use should be used when the image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts. In other words, a screenshot from a movie is acceptable to use when talking about the movie itself - it is not acceptable to use it to talk about the actress who happens to be in the picture.") I may have a go tomorrow ... Do we have a list of pictures discussed in secondary sources that might qualify for fair use? --JN466 03:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images should not be added to the Gallery. The Gallery should only include free use licensed images. Fair use images, if uploaded under an appropriate fair-use-rationale, should be incorporated directly alongside the article text where they are discussed, as exemplified in the current standard for the article presentation utilizing existing fair use images at present. -- Cirt (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that fair-use images should be shown in the text. Echoing Jimbo's and others' concerns, my preference would be to drop the hidden gallery of Commons images; a link to Commons is provided, and, for those interested, does the job better than clicking on "Show". --JN466 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that fair-use images are to be used only when there is no possible way a free-use picture could ever be made available. Thus, if an article is about The Wizard of Oz (the movie), one may show an image of the movie poster in the lede, for instance. If one is writing about a specific scene or character in the movie, a fixed image of the scene may be used. Why? Because…

A) there is simply no reasonable expectation that free-use images might be made available given the fact that MGM is the only source for such things and they are not in the business of giving away their intellectual property for the fun of it, and

B) the very limited use here on Wikipedia doesn’t infringe in any meaningful way on the rights of the copyright holder, and

C) the images directly illustrate the topic of the article and are necessary for a full, encyclopedic treatment.

I would be astonished if Wikipedia’s policies allowed images from reliable, copyrighted, secondary sources showing generic drawings of Mohammed to be added to a gallery of generic free-use ones. Such a use soundly fails tests A, B, and C.

Expanding a bit upon the above “C”-requirement of Wikipedia’s fair-use criteria: Fair-use images must directly speak to the article’s topic. Thus, if I significantly expand an article on Thermodynamic temperature (which I actually did) and added (which I actually did) what I thought was this fair-use image of the Z-machine, where Sandia’s Web site stated “Media are welcome to download/publish this image with related news stories”, the image still couldn’t be used because the image didn’t directly illustrate “thermodynamic temperature” (and I had to delete it). Now…

This article is about Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. The drawings are used to help illustrate the subject matter but do not directly illustrate the article’s topic. The only work-around to this litmus test would be a circumstance where, for instance, a particular depiction of Mohammed caused some kook to shoot a cartoonist eight times and nearly decapitate him (because God supposedly loves that sort of thing, which is on Channel 162 on his DVR, sandwiched between MMA cage fighting and witch dunking, both of which he also records) and we created a new article dedicated to that incident. If the cartoon that caused the incident had first appeared in The New York Times because the cartoonist worked for them, I believe we could use that image in an article dedicated to that incident; doing so would directly enhance a proper encyclopedic treatment and directly illustrate the topic. Doing so would satisfy points A, B, and C, above. Now…

The above is my understanding of Wikipedia’s policy regarding the fair use of non-free images. I’m simply not seeing how putting fair-use images in the gallery (rather than body text) is the trick that magically circumvents Wikipedia’s policies; I look forward to be proven wrong. Although WP:OI makes it clear that contributions of drawings of Mohammed from contributors hailing from all over the globe are not WP:OR, I would be pleased to have images that have more notability. To settle this question once and for all, I think we need to bring in a Wikipedia “expert” on this issue. It seems clear to me that none of us here discussing this matter have a full appreciation for the rules and nuances of the issue. Greg L (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

convenience break

Responding to the last several comments above, I think the South African cartoonist's pic was directly related to the subject of this article, since it happened as part of the EDMD movement, and it would be uploaded as both an illustration of the overall subject and also to illustrate a (short) passage in which we'd have information on it in particular. There seems to be plenty of second-party sourcing on it as well. I'm finding less sourcing from regular newspapers and magazines on the Reason contest than I thought I would, but perhaps we can use some major blogs for that. The Reason contest was also a major part of the EDMD and images of the three winners would illustrate the overall concept. We already have a passage about it. -- And, I see Cirt has uploaded the first-place winner. Great! -- I agree, the pics would best be outside of a gallery. With those four pics and maybe one or two others that are in the gallery now, we'd have enough illustrations that we could dispense with the gallery. But rather than discuss this much further, I'll try to find some secondary sourcing on the pics I've mentioned and post it here. I'm not sure a lot of speculative discussion is worthwhile. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of "lede" tag to top of page

The size of the lede is appropriate. It should be expanded, not reduced. The addition of the "lede" tag to the top of the page by User:Lihaas, and then repeated insertion, again, is inappropriate and not constructive to positive improvement of the page. The tag should be removed. Please read WP:LEAD. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

• My first impression of the lede is that it is indeed a little long. That said, this article is a long article, so I don't think the lede is excessively long.
• There are some wording issues, such as "It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central,"... this makes it sounds like Comedy Central initiated the idea of EDMD. In this sense, the lede does have room for improvement.
• A maintenance tag such as this one on an actively edited article serves little purpose. The goal of a tag like this isn't to register your objection to the current state of the article, it's intended to attract an editor to take on a task that has gone undone. Because of this, it's pointless to edit war over a tag like this, just remove it and discuss on the talk page what specific improvements should be made.
• I think the lede could be both made more comprehensive and more concise at the same time. Some details, such as the name of the city where Molly Norris is from are not critical in an overview. Other sections of the lede such as Pakistan's response should be expanded. I would endeavor to keep the overall length of the lede in the same ballpark it is in right now by trimming some of the less relevant details and wordiness, while expanding the coverage of it.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are all good suggestions. I agree with all of them, and will begin addressing those helpful recommendations. The tag that was added was primarily added as a protest against what the user viewed as the length of the lede. So can the tag be removed? -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see little value in a tag like that one remaining on the article as long as the topic of the tag is being actively discussed on the talk page. That said, edit warring over whether the tag should remain or not is not particularly productive either. The focus should be on the content rather than the tag. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted the tag. The purpose of tags is to draw the attention of wikipedians to an issue so it can be discussed and addressed. Such a tag is pretty much pointless for an article which is actively being edited and has an engaged, shepherding author. Moreover, this issue has now been discussed and Cirt wrote that he agreed with the community’s input. I’m sure he will get around to the lede PDQ. BTW, Cirt, I agree, the lede is too long. IMO, it should succinctly touch upon the key circumstances. As I wrote above at Short paragraphs, three randomly chosen Featured Articles I ran across all have nice, pithy leads that cut to the chase. Readers can wade into the body text if they still want detailed information. My suggestion would be to try to keep the lede here just about the same size as those in the three FAs to which I linked in my prior post. Greg L (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't see a need at this point to sully the article with a tag. People know where the talk page is, obviously. And at this point I see the 92K article has 3 paras; whereas it could easily warrant 4, so I see no existing issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the tag is not a "protest," second the point of a tag is not to "sullen." Dont know where that comes from. The tags are to indicate the issue is ongoing and indeed it is. Nevertheless, less than 24 hours doesn't constitute time enough for a debate to warrant consensus on removal. It's a work in progress.

At any rate, a statement on the facebook group and a brief summation should clear the lead in 2 para's easy.

(i've refrained from adding the tag on the premise said here that an alternative is being worked on, if that's not forthcoming then the call to alter the lead will have to go back up)Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section seemed to be somewhat meandering, and in need of an organizing principle. I have introduced subheaders and grouped the various responses into three subsections: Support, Criticism and Analysis. No material was deleted in the process. I think it works, and makes orientation easier for the reader; but feel free to revert if you feel my change was too bold and needs more discussion first. --JN466 00:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that as it stands at present, we have no responses from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. represented in the reception section. All of these countries have English-language newspapers; we should be able to find something. --JN466 00:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of the subsection looks okay. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.151.196.110, 26 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} information you have provided is wrong, molly did not initiate the draw muhammad day, get your facts straight idiots,

78.151.196.110 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Any chance you could provide any sources to help this idiot make the change you want? Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 10:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm… I own a couple copies of Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. This I.P. editor (from England) must not have thumbed through the book and instead employed a new and novel technique in hopes of accomplishing his or her objective. Greg L (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is an history of drawing Muhammed as a protest before South Park. The Facebook page is using the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy cartoon as their portrait but the Jyllands cartoons are mentioned only in passing. A Brussels paper in 2006 cited Dutch artists, who wished to remain anonymous, think that Western artist should not allow themselves to be intimidated and propose an international Draw Muhammad Week.. The same article references an archive of drawings of Mohammed up till 2006 (and till present), many of which were u/l to the Facebook page on May 20th. A drawmuhammed.com website was up in 2006 gathering drawings of Muhammed and claiming their support for Free Speech. The creator of the website had(has) a blog named Draw Muhammed Week started in 2006 directly quoting the Brussels newspaper about getting the Draw Muhammed Week started. That blog and website were on the list of 12 banned sites by the Pakistani government So a precedent for banning of websites over Muhammed depictions happened in 2006 by Pakistan. They blocked all of blogspot.com rather than just his blog. With this earlier backround on a Draw Muhammed event focused on free speech and leading to an earlier blocking of web site by Pakistan and the History section neglects it and starts in 2010. This article is showing WP:BIAS in favor of the US and neglecting the Dutch, Danish and Norwegian contributions early on. We could at least mention that this isn't the first time Pakistan took the action to block websites over the depictions and it's not the first time a Draw Muhammed event was suggested. Also, without this information the reader has no context over why Pakistani's would burn the flags of these three nations. There are Norwegian web sites in the first 12 banned sites all of which reprinted the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and was the basis for their block by the PTA. Alatari (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do any secondary sources make this purported connection described by Alatari? Seems like WP:SYNTH. -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the links. The BBC says that Pakistan bans blogspot.com because of drawmuhammedweek blog. With that source it cannot be disputed that Pakistan has blocked pictures of Muhammed before this incident (leaving the reader believing this is the first time it has happened is a BIAS). It is not synth to look at the Everyone Draw Muhammed Day page on FB and see that it's the identical drawing as the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I posted a link to the secondary source depicting that cartoon in 2006 and in the article is a link to the facebook page. They are identical and blatantly obvious facts that noone will challenge (that the pictures are identical) need not even be sourced. There are numerous articles identifying the Norwegian, Dutch and Danish websites that published drawings of Muhammed (the very same drawing as the one in the FB page) and were blocked by Pakistan. And I posted a secondary source (Brussels newspaper) which quoted artists that wish to start a Draw Muhammed Week. Track the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy pictures. They are the thread that binds these events together. Alatari (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is you, an individual Wikipedia user, that is purporting to draw all these supposed connections together - not a secondary source. -- Cirt (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I stated what the sources said above. Pakistan blocked Muhammed cartoon web sites before this. They included Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. The Jyllands cartoons were on all the blocked websites including the Facebook page. All of that is from secondary sources or primary sources corroborated by secondaries. Not me. The sources don't say that the Pakistani's burnt the Norwegian flag because of the Jyllands cartoons so it would be synth to suggest it. We state the facts provided in the sources. There are even more secondary sources list in the Brussels newspaper at the bottom including updates. Your answers come back so fast I am not sure you are even reviewing these sources. Alatari (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources from 2010 do not make a connection between prior drawing events and this one. To use old sources to imply otherwise, is WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. -- Cirt (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Dividing the above into workable chunks:

• The Draw Muhammed Week and subsequent blocking of the 12 websites by Pakistan should find a place in the Jylland controversy article and the timeline of events doesn't include the block by Pakistan of all of blogspot.com.
  • This here is a public reversal of my earlier views because Cirt swayed me... Alatari (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• The history of this event is not only about Norris and South Park. Andy's interview invokes the Jylland cartoons (Caricature Furor), the attempts on Vilks and Westergaard and the murder of van Gogh. Andy and the other organizers were also outraged by that violence perpetrated towards those artists so these 4 items need a prominent place in the history to avoid violations of WP:UNDUE. The AP press release (Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of any prophet as blasphemous and the row sparked comparison with protests across the Muslim world over the publication of satirical cartoons of Mohammed in European newspapers in 2006) and several other sources also mention that the current rash of protests in Pakistan harken back to the events of 2006. One source starts it's history with the 2006 controversy So the Jylland controversy needs more coverage as backround.
• The picture of green backround with Muhammed wielding a dagger and 2 wives(?)is the logo(May 20th) of EDMD's Facebook page since April 27th and would be the perfect choice to include in the article. It is one of the original 12 cartoons published in 2006.Alatari (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• So… apparently, Alatari, your suggestion that we include the image of “Muhammed wielding a dagger” image, means you disagree with point #5 from the above 10-point metric for choosing pictures for the gallery? Or you do agree with the list, but don’t think that particular image is “critical of Mohammed, Islam, or religion” or can be “regarded as unnecessary provocative”; is that right? Or do you agree with the ten-point list, and find the image to be unnecessarily provocative, but suggested it to make a point I’m not aware of? Greg L (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest it solely because it is notable as the groups chosen representative picture. No other considerations. A screen shot of their page show it clearly as the picture they chose to represent their admin and there entire page. Alatari (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article on the website of The Guardian, a major British national daily, offers (negative) commentary and states that Facebook shut the page down on May 21. Is this correct? If so, I can't seem to find a reference to that fact in our article as of now. --JN466 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some secondary sources say it was shut down, then restored, then shut down again, this is unclear as per sources. But yes, there are a few things I have been meaning to research and update, this as well as the Zapiro cartoon controversy. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some techie sources on this. I bookmarked a lot of things while researching this. One is from a German Business Mag that interviewed the hacker that took out Andy's Skype and the FB EDMD page. The hacker is name Ali Hassan. FB restored the page on the 22nd as could be seen from Google cache. I haven't found a source for why the page is back down. I could swear I posted these sources here earlier... Alatari (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day#Andy's EDMD page was hacked and is gone again yes here it is smooshed between two long debates. The May 22nd cached Google page has disappeared... Alatari (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Times article, also with commentary, title "This is a poor way to draw attention to intolerance‎". As for the page being down, I did a search on Facebook a few minutes ago; I couldn't find a page, and only found the page of a user who complained the page had gone. --JN466 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article in the Mail & Guardian from 28 May, titled "Why draw the Prophet?", speaks of the "Facebook initiative "Everybody draw Muhammad day", apparently since withdrawn."

This article on the Mail Online site, titled "Now Bangladesh bans Facebook in outrage over online competition to draw Prophet Mohammed", says Bangladesh has also undertaken some sort of block of Facebook.--JN466 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PC World, quoting a Facebook spokeswoman, says that Facebook blocked access to the page from India, but did not take it down. "Word in the street" is that the owner was hacked, and that is why the page disappeared. --JN466 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Here a similar story by CIO Magazine from a few days ago, mentioning that Facebook blocked access to the page from India, as well as mentioning the hacking incident. Here info on the publication: [17] --JN466 19:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've added commentary from some of the above sources, i.e. The Guardian, The Times and Mail & Guardian: [18]
• I propose that we add that Facebook blocked access to the page from India, per sources above, and mention the hacking incident. --JN466 20:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Sun reported numbers of those supporting the EDMD page and the "Against EDMD" page as both exceeding 100,000 by May 20. --JN466 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• AP (Yahoo reprint) reports that FB removed the EDMD page and apologized to Pakistan stating that it will not happen again. Alatari (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Business Week reports Facebook assured the court no blasphemous material will be available to users in Pakistan the Teddy Bear Muhammed EDMD is still there. Alatari (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Dailytech article with similar view but questions why the competing EDMD page is still there.
• The Pakistani judge is keeping the case open till June 15th. Alatari (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ready to beleive Najibullah Malik, secretary of Pakistan's information technology ministry yet. I'd like to see more sources before we add a claim like that. OlYeller^Talktome 01:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He maybe lying but it's what several RS claim he said. Since it's in Business Week and the Associated Press I'd go with it attributing the statement to him. The Pakistani Minister Malik, says.... That paragraph was already added Monday from PC Week. Alatari (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• All Faceboook (is this reliable? I asked on the RS/Notice board) is the only site which claims FB contacted them to assure them the second deletion of the page was not an act by FB. Has anyone found a source where FB talked directly to that RS News source? Alatari (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll take what he says with a grain of salt. It does connect the next two largest current EDMD groups and his applications stats are nice. Alatari (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• MillatFacebook or MFB is Pakistan's first social network site started in response to EDMD. This Google link found by JN466 is better. Alatari (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They are so new and so badly criticised maybe their only notability is that they are the first and they are tied to this controversy. Alatari (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove videos

Please do not remove videos from the gallery. The videos are of individuals drawing depictions, which is the very subject of this article. It is directly relevant. Please, stop with the censorship. It is extremely inappropriate. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, Cirt. Your posting messages here on this talk page with copious “pleases” and your conclusory “Thanks” (as in ‘Thank you so very much for understanding the law I just laid down’) establishes only what you want. It does not establish what is “right” nor does it establish what is truly a consensus. Everything here, including whether a muted video (something that really smacks of “censorship”) being in the gallery best serves this article is an issue that remains open for discussion so that a true consensus can be properly determined. Please understand that. Greg L (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that consensus is important. Also important not to unilaterally remove material from the article, as has been done by Greg L (talk · contribs). It is possible that Greg L (talk · contribs) might benefit from a break from this article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please leave your childish, smarty-pants attitude out of this. I simply agree with Martin H. here; fully agree with him. That video had no place being here in the first place and you should have just listened to him and deleted it instead of pushing back and engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. The compromise (mute the narration even though the fellow is facing the camera and his mouth is moving) looked utterly absurd. My proposed remedy (don’t head down the slippery slope of having any videos for a variety of stated reasons) was probably too broad of a brush stroke. The latest solution (keep the stop-action-like video but douche the seven-minute-long video of the *clever* guy and his censored-out witticisms) seems perfectly satisfactory to me. Lighten up the reigns a bit here on this article fella. What Martin H. was saying seemed to have offended your first instincts and sensibilities over “censorship.” The trouble is, Martin H.’s instincts were spot-on correct. The simple fact is that not everyone’s contributions to Wikipedia are good and encyclopedic and deleting crap is not “censorship”; that’s sort of a Well… Duh thing everyone else seems to understand. Greg L (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid a lack of civility as you have displayed, referring to other editors as "thoroughly brain-damaged". Your level of emotional responses appear to be increasing. Perhaps you would benefit from a break from this article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote engaging in a thoroughly brain-damaged compromise. I was criticizing the product of not listening to Martin H. and your reverting his deletion of that improper video that had no place ever being here. He was right and you were wrong. The resulting compromise (because you behave as if you WP:OWN this article) was an idiotic solution. I wasn’t saying you were brain damaged. And desist please, with your childish “you need to take a break” wiki-crap; it is transparent posturing and really amounts to nothing more than WP:BAIT. I can’t help if you chafe at someone stepping into what you think is your sandbox. If you have something legitimate to say, the say it, but cut the bull, please. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I have to agree that your tone isn't particularly helpful here. Suggesting that other editors take a break because you disagree seems out of line. Maybe if you had a good argument or any argument at all as to why he should take a break, I would see it differently. Your smiley faces and pre-thankyous seem like a thin veil over your true intentions of getting people who disagree with you to go away or do what you tell them. Disregarding his agrguements and jumping on the be-civil wagon doesn't help either. You haven't really given any arguments but have again stated your opinion as fact. I think you've brought a lot to this article but in my opinion, may be going a bit off the deep end. OlYeller^Talktome 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, understood. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with OlYeller.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I see that now. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the subject of this article is the event and its implications, not the drawings themselves. Cenarium (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is both. -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is the same video I saw before, then it is a useful perspective. Coverage of a protest belongs in an article about a protest, even if (horrors) it expresses the opinions of a protestor. Wnt (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Towel42 reddit, 23 May 2010 - please add this image to the gallery

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Aisha follows the prophet
  Aisha follows the prophet

Towel42 reddit (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• My personal reaction to this drawing is that it goes beyond the principle of “depicting Mohammed in a drawing” and treads well into the territory of criticizing the prophet and it mocks religion in general. It doesn’t strike me as remotely being in the spirit of what the day is about and has no place whatsoever being in the gallery. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit rash but I can't decide if that means we should not include it (seems like censorship). I haven't been able to read all the sections on this talk page yet but do we have some sort of system for choosing which of the thousands of pictures are to be included in this article? Some sort of metric would absolve us/Wikipedia of seemingly having a point of view. It may not completely but it's the best way to deal with such situations, in my opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Not done: I agree with Greg L (t c) that this change is not in keeping with the article. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
      • It isn't censorship to reject bad-taste, inappropriate, insulting material. It's editorial judgment. I would include controversial elements that are necessary to illustrate or describe the subject and try to distinguish that from gratuitous material. It may not always be easy to distinguish, but in this case I think the image distracts the readers by bringing up highly emotional things not really part of this subject. If it were central to the subject, it would be worth it. We also run the danger of this article being a coatrack for anti-Islamic material. Our purpose is just to cover the subject of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I entirely agree with you. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
          • That makes sense. I think I have a clearer understanding of the difference now. Thanks all. OlYeller^Talktome 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Yet the anti-Islamic aspects have been a major point of contention for this event, so following this (OR) logic, we should include pictures showing it, like the one above. Cenarium (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• All of the above is original research and none of those pictures should be included unless they have been covered by reliable secondary sources. Cenarium (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Metric_for_Choosing_Drawings_for_Inclusion. -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is not to "sanitize" the protest and make it look like it was an Islam-friendly event! If the photo was up on the site, and they didn't throw it out, then it represents the sort of thing that people would have seen when looking at it and the basis of their response. Wnt (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Millat Facebook

Re this reversion of an unsourced edit, there is an Agence France Presse article on the establishment of Millat Facebook here: [19]. --JN466 02:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that this has now been reintroduced to the article with that link. __meco (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Metric for Choosing Drawings for Inclusion

I'd like to create a metric to help us decide which drawings to include. This will be helpful not only to help us decide but to guard Wikipedia from seemingly adding pictures to push some point of view. From the discussions above, it doesn't seem that there's a consensus exactly but also no objections to stated criteria. Rather than try to paraphrase the opinions of others, I'd like to just start over here. First off, what factors would we like to have (i.e. quality, candor, offensiveness)? This is all assuming that we're able to post the drawing without violating any copyrights. OlYeller^Talktome 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Free use status.
2. Emphasis to include multiple different free use images of varying stylistic interpretations, so as to have a wide variety of artistic perspectives.

That's my take on it. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• First off, let me be clear as to where I’m coming from. I’m an atheist and don’t favor any one religion over another. Clearly, Wikipedia is not a soap box for aspiring artists to mock anyone’s religion. That is not what Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is in the least bit about. Maybe the whole concept of having a gallery was ill-considered. There are drawings of Mohammed having carnal knowledge with animals; we rightly don’t include those here. It isn’t an issue of “censorship”, it’s a matter of ensuring that everything in the article is topical, germane, and encyclopedic to the subject. There are also space constraints; we can’t have 200 thumbnails here. If someone was to write “Many non-Islamic religions believe Mohammed was a false prophet,” we would delete it as as not being topical to “Draw Mohammed Day” nor this article about that day. Well, just because that message point were conveyed in the form of a drawing mustn’t circumvent this fundamental principle of article writing. I suggest that the gallery

1. be limited to a reasonable size that best enhances the article, and
2. the entries stay narrowly focused on the simple point of showing depictions of Mohammed, and
3. going anywhere beyond this, such as drawings critical of Mohammed or Islam or religion should be regarded as unnecessary provocative and have absolutely no place here, and
4. we abandon any pretense of anything goes.

All we need for a gallery is that it be of reasonable size, that it comprise an eclectic and tasteful simple collection of drawings simply depicting Mohammed. I like Cirt’s wording of “varying stylistic interpretations”. Perhaps 20 drawings is enough. Greg L (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And 20 artistic depictions does indeed seem like an appropriate number. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Everything you've said sounds fair and rational to me. I guess we should probably wait to see if anyone has more input but I'd eventually like to set Greg L's 4 points above plus the obvious free use point as our metric. I was on the fence about #3 because I thought it might be censorsing but the movement seems to have a clear goal of simply depicting the prophet and not to be critical or the prophet or Islam. In other words, we're not censoring drawings that are critical because those drawings went outside of what the movement seems to have been about. That may be just my interpretation as the movement isn't strongly defined but that's what I'm going with from the evidence I've been shown. OlYeller^Talktome 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, do we want to lump videos into this category? I usually stay away from videos on Wiki but it seems logical to include videos in this metric. OlYeller^Talktome 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The gallery currently features that stop-action-like silent video. Bearing in mind the interests of “varying stylistic interpretations” and “a tasteful, eclectic mix,” if a suitable one comes along that meets all the criteria and enhances the mix, why not? So, trying to consolidate this all together, I have the following:

1. entries must be Free use status, and
2. entries may be videos or stills, and
3. Wikipedia and this article’s gallery is not a free-for-all community wall for contributors to assert their free-speech rights; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and
4. the prescriptive objective is to keep the gallery topical, germane, and encyclopedic to the subject of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and, accordingly, all entries must stay narrowly focused on the simple point of showing depictions of Mohammed, and moreover
5. the proscriptive objective is that candidate entries critical of Mohammed, Islam, or religion are regarded as unnecessary provocative, are not in keeping with the subject matter, and shall not be included.
6. the gallery shall be limited to 20 entries
7. the objective is that the gallery be eclectic and tasteful, with varying stylistic interpretations, and
8. when the gallery already has 20 entries, a new entry may replace an old one if doing so better improves the gallery per point #7, above, and
9. When opposing wiki-guidelines are flying about in edit wars, WP:COMMONSENSE will rigorously be applied in dealing with the gallery.

I’m married to none of the above. Have at it. Greg L (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Those all seem fair to me so far. #9 seems open to problems but the problems may just be inherent with this sort of issue. OlYeller^Talktome 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the (9) above criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happier with eight or maybe the present 12, but some of those can be replaced. Even just four would get the point across, probably. Three stick figures? One would do. I can go along with Greg L's list, though. Overall it looks very sensible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why three “stick figures”? To be as inoffensive as possible to Muslims? That is pretty much impossible by definition given the nature of the subject matter. I would suggest that we simply continue to do what we’ve already started here: all candidate images are tagged with the [[Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day]]-tag so they automatically appear in Common’s Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. That will be the pallet we draw from for this gallery. If we adhere to the nine points above; particularly point #7, the gallery should be a representative of those contributions that are “tasteful” while providing the reader with a sampling that has “varying stylistic interpretations” (not just stick figures). Clearly there is a lot of room for human judgment in choosing what to feature in the gallery, but the same can be said for plain ol’ prose in body text. In the end, the objective has to be in keeping with the prescriptive requirement of #4: ensuring that everything in the article—and the gallery—is topical, germane, and encyclopedic to the subject Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Greg L (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Metric for choosing additions to the gallery of depictions of Mohammed

JohnWBarber’s post reminded me that there is another point regarding a mechanical detail that we’ve been taking for granted but which should be explicitly explained. It is #8, below.

The entries shown in the gallery on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day are subject to the following criteria:

1. Entries must be released into the public domain or released under a free license, such as the GFDL or an appropriate Creative Commons license such as Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.
2. entries may be videos or stills, and
3. Wikipedia and this article’s gallery is not a free-for-all community graffiti wall for contributors to assert their free-speech rights; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and
4. the prescriptive objective is to keep the gallery topical, germane, and encyclopedic to the subject of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and, accordingly, all entries must stay narrowly focused on the simple point of showing depictions of Mohammed, and moreover
5. the proscriptive objective is that candidate entries critical of Mohammed, Islam, or religion are regarded as unnecessary provocative, are not in keeping with the subject matter, and shall not be included.
6. The gallery shall be limited to 20 entries.
7. The objective is that the gallery be eclectic and tasteful, with varying stylistic interpretations.
8. Gallery candidates will be drawn from a pool on Commons’ Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. For drawings to automatically appear there, an image’s page should be tagged at the bottom with the [[Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day]]-tag.
9. Whereas great latitude may be afforded to the nature of contributions appearing on the Commons category page, those from produced by Wikipedians and which are chosen for inclusion in the gallery shall comply with the requirements of WP:Original images, which holds that Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. Images originally derived from secondary sources are immune to this restriction since secondary sources define “published ideas or arguments.”
10. Except for #9, above, entries originally derived from secondary sources shall comply with all other requirements of this guideline.
11. When the gallery already has 20 entries, a new entry may replace an old one if doing so better improves the gallery per point #7, above.
12. When opposing wiki-guidelines are flying about in edit wars, WP:COMMONSENSE will rigorously be applied in dealing with the gallery.

The above gree-div is transcluded from Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed.

Greg L (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Greg L (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• SUMMARY of CONSENSUS:
  • Greg L - support
  • Cirt - support
  • alatari - oppose
  • Cenarium - oppose
  • OlYeller21 - support
  • Wnt - oppose
  • JohnWBarber - support
  • --Epeefleche (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - support
  • SteveB67 - support 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• The metric is quite simple: covered by RS. Since none met the criteria, I removed the gallery. There is no encyclopedic purpose in a random gallery of pictures in an article on this event, that would go beyond describing this event (elaboration follows). Also, I don't agree with several points made, for example if we include photos, then they don't have to be 'tasteful' per WP:NOT#CENSORED. Though that debate is vain, since an encyclopedia is based on secondary sources. The winner of the Reason site is ok because it has been the subject of RS. Similarly in Doodle4Google, ignoring copyright for the sake of argument, we wouldn't have a gallery of made up google logos, only those covered by RS, principally the winners. In an article about a castle, it's ok to use made up photos of the castle because this serves the encyclopedic purpose to describe the subject; but for this article we want to describe the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day event and its consequences, not the pictures themselves. And if we want to present a picture, then it should have been covered by RS. Cenarium (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, totally made up criterion by Cenarium (talk · contribs), articles about other subjects contain free use images, not all of which are independently discussed in WP:RS sources. Consensus here on the talk page supports inclusion of a Gallery subsection, with the entries that were removed, the only thing that needs hammering out, and indeed that had been gaining consensus, was the above criterion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus in support for this recently-added gallery; it has been discussed but no consensus formed and status quo is not consensus. I already explained the difference with photos used in other articles, they serve to describe the subject, but the subject of this article is the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day events and consequences, not the pictures themselves. Therefore presenting a particular picture requires it to be covered by a (reliable) secondary source per WP:V and WP:OR - presenting a particular picture as representative of this event with no support by RS, and consequently this gallery, would be original research; in fact there's no need to cite those policies as it is fundamental for an encyclopedia to rely on secondary sources. Cenarium (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does support the current gallery. Suggestions of criteria such as the list above by Greg L (talk · contribs) support the current entries in the current gallery. The only thing being discussed were the individual criteria themselves. -- Cirt (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address the core of the issue. And no, I don't think consensus supports the current gallery, although I suggest that this determination be left to uninvolved editors, if it becomes needed; and even if that were the case, consensus can change. Cenarium (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt here. While you can argue that concensus hasn't been reached, you seem to be the only person objceting against at least 4 editors. Why would all the involved editors step away from this discussion? I don't really think that point makes much sense here. I would agree if there seemed to be some long battles going on based purely on emotion but that seems to be quite the opposite of this case. As for your initial point (no reason to include these pictures), I completely disagree. An article about an event where pictures were drawn should include some of the pictures. OlYeller^Talktome 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OlYeller21 (talk · contribs) has a very sound and reasoned comment here, well said. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Cenarium, I’m counting a number of editors, above, who were working on hammering out the details for the criteria to use for selecting entries for the gallery. Whereas consensus can certainly change, for the moment, there clearly is a consensus that the gallery is appropriate. You would be well advised to not edit against consensus again on this issue.

  Finally, as to the meat & potatoes of you argument, it seems to be predicated on the premiss that images in articles are somehow different from the prose wikipedians write and somehow subject to WP:RS. Nothing could be further from the truth. A large number of our articles are chock full of user-contributed images. Consider Kilogram (an article I mostly wrote). Notice the image at top? I created that one. Are you suggesting it can’t be used in the article because I am not an RS? Nonsense. The image is there because it is a user contribution that illustrates the subject. Consider our Featured picture candidates. That is a venue for selecting the finest image contributions—most of which were created by our readership. Wikipedian-contributed images—and those from I.P. editors from around the world—belong on Wikipedia just as much as the words we write.

  If you are concerned about Wikipedia offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims, I would remind you of the following three things: 1) Wikipedia is not Islam, 2) Readers don’t have to go to this article if they don’t want to be offended, and 3) readers certainly have to make a conscious decision to expand the gallery when they click on the [show] so is safe to assume they want to see what’s there. Please don’t presume that it is your right to deny them that opportunity.

  If there are individuals inhabiting this planet who get all “hot & bothered” just knowing that the depictions exist for those who choose to seek them out, that pretty much falls under the heading of “So sad – too bad.” Just like our Pornographic film article, there are images there that are bound to offend someone (or a lot of people). If they don’t want to be offended, they don’t have to go to that article. Similarly, you can choose not to click on this link to a gallery showing a topless female (unless you are looking for a reason to be all offended). Greg L (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg L (talk · contribs) is correct, Kilogram, and Featured picture candidates, are very good examples of this. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(To OlYeller21) I didn't say those editors should step away from the discussion, I don't see what's the matter here ? I have a right to object. There's clearly no stable, strong consensus in support of this gallery as standing, so that argument should not be used to deter opposition please. I've no intent to edit war, but will certainly open an RFC if needed.

(To Greg L) I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia values, your later paragraphs miss the line completely. I have recently strongly opposed the way many commons pictures of sexual nature were deleted and have restored some of them based on actual consensus, eg. My motive here is to maintain the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

You clearly did not understand my argument, I am going to explain again why this is different from other uses of pictures. I would appreciate if you didn't turn this into ridicule but stay serious and collaborative. I don't say there's no reason or that we shouldn't include those pictures, we can, but only when they have been covered by reliable sources, because it's not up to us to determine which pictures are representative of this event but to the secondary sources. It's original research to infer which ones are; unlike for photos we take of article subjects.

In the present case, if we were to include pictures, then we would have to make a choice, and that choice would be inherently original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia, because we rely on the secondary sources. All this work at trying to find criteria on the representativity of those pictures is original research. Take this request for example, all the arguments there were extra-encyclopedic original research. The point is, it's not up to us to do this but to the secondary sources which we then rely on. Cenarium (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, I am curious, were all of the pictures displayed in the article Masturbation, discussed in secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, you certainly have the right to object to anything you want to here but the weight I put on your opinion will decrease if you keep making arguments like that (that involved editors should step away). I never said that there was a strong consensus but surely you see that there are more people who agree with posting them than people who disagree with posting them. Also, your arguments don't seem to be swaying anyone at the moment (I hope people speak up if they agree with you). In my current opinion, the pictures are primary sources to illustrate an aspect of the subject of the article much like a small quote from a book would be found on the same book's article. Obviously that's my opinion and you have your right to yours. If you feel that the majority is wrong in this case (which sometimes happens) please feel free to start an RfC. OlYeller^Talktome 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• (still recovering from clicking that link provided by Cirt…) Yeah, I fully understand your point, Cenarium. I don’t find your logic regarding RS bankrupt; I just don’t agree with it. Apparently neither do two other editors here. The subject is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, not “National Geographic and The New York Times Draw Mohammed Day.” Community-supplied illustrations properly illustrate the topic just as well as the many other illustrations—and probably adheres more closely to the spirit of “Everybody” than most other subjects on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Quoting you, Cenarium In the present case, if we were to include pictures, then we would have to make a choice, and that choice would be inherently original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. As wikipedians, we make “choices” all the time as to whether body text in articles is germane, topical, and encyclopedic. Accompanying illustrations are often changed (by “choice”) in order to better illustrate the subject. Long exposure photography recently had its photographs changed (“censored” or “original research” via “choice”) to better support the article. I had suggested that “choice” here on Featured Picture Candidates. Just because these images are “art” doesn’t suddenly make them subject to the Magna Carta and we can no longer “choose” which ones are best for the article. Point #3 from the above ten-point list is there precisely to dispel this myth. It’s all a simple matter of editorial judgement and the pictures chosen for the gallery are selected by community consensus—just like community consensus (“choice”) governs what we write in our articles. Greg L (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium seems to want to apply a different standard to this article, than to other articles Cenarium has edited, such as Masturbation [20]. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference with, for example, Long exposure photography, is that pictures there serve to illustrate the subject, and it is obvious that they illustrate the subject, as with Masturbation, there's no need to engage in (significant) original research to see that. Whilst the present article is about an event, no picture can directly, obviously describe such events, there you need original research to infer which most appropriately do; as hinted by all this talk about which criteria to apply, that's not simple editorial discretion. In contrast, in an article named 'Amateur drawings of Mohammed', it would be ok to have such pictures. But this article being about the event and not the drawings themselves, we can't infer on our own which drawings are representative/illustrative of this event, RS do and we follow.

Cirt: That's the diff I provided just above, surely I wouldn't have provided it if I didn't think the situations were different. Cenarium (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

With this last comment by Cenarium, it is even more clear that Cenarium wishes to apply double-standards to this article, for some odd reason to have a uniquely made up decision apply here, and not to the independent selection of images, for example, at the article Masturbation, [21], or many of the images at WP:FPC. I am sorry, but that argument does not fly. -- Cirt (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah… Cenarium’s argument isn’t flying with me here either. The distinction he makes between Long exposure photography and the gallery here seems an exceedingly artificial construct. The depictions of Mohammed in the gallery come from Commons, and the images there came from contributors from many walks of life, hailing from all over the world. Commons is the only source of free images we will be able to draw from in the foreseeable future. I think the only reason we have dueling wikiguidlines being bandied about regarding this gallery is because of its religiously provocative overtones; that can’t be helped. I would suggest we’ve gone as far as we can here with each of our points. At least, I hope that is the case. I thought my link to the Coppertone Girl (to make a point) was rather tasteful. But I’ve got some images of genitalia stuck in my mind now, and am dearly hoping they’ll be gone by tomorrow morning. Greg L (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing the criteria. I've been meaning to do it but hadn't obviously. Should we move the criteria to the article page and have discussion on its talk page? I've never done/seen anything quite like this so I don't know if there's a precedent to follow. I like it though. OlYeller^Talktome 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of what you understand here or not, allow me to be clear. The above gree-div is simply showing text that actually originates from Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. As you seem to have already noted, that page is a talk page (not an article or ‘WP:’ page). I’ve done this “transclusion” thing before, where the transcluded page was an article with its own, separate talk page. But having discussions in remote talk-page backwaters like that didn’t work at all because far too few involved editors were aware of what was going on. So I made the new page a sub-page of this talk page. If things are to be discussed about that subpage’s contents, the discussion occurs here, where there will be more participants. Believe me, it works much better that way, otherwise you have little posts here that amount to “Hey gang. Be sure to check out what’s going on over on the subpage!” That still didn’t work at all well because establishing a true community consensus remained elusive. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I appended (inside a < noinclude >) a notice directing readers to this page for discussion. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your “gonna try it - naw… never mind” edits. Indeed, “subpages of talk pages that are talk pages and not article pages” is hard to keep straight. Once we set the simple objective of “trying to keep all the highly related discussions here”, then the means of accomplishing that become fairly clear. Having discussions in multiple places can drive editors crazy. Greg L (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, that's basically what I determined. My semi-OCD would love to have a subpage article with the 12 guidelines with discussion on the guidelines on the talkpage but I really doubt it would be handled well by new editors trying to figure it out. That being said, I agree with the 2 new points. The 12 points given seem as reasonable as possible for this situation. OlYeller^Talktome 02:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any "guideline" or agreement that selects against a photo because it is "offensive". One can argue that the whole point of Draw Muhammed Day is to be offensive. The gallery of photos chosen should accurately reflect the nature of the event, both bland and spicy. If you do otherwise then you're just running a WikiPropaganda campaign to misrepresent the nature of the content that was present. I can't tell you whether that is a bias against Americans, trying to pretend that we don't dare stand up for our freedom of expression, or if it is a bias against Pakistanis or Muslims, making them look more radical than they are — probably both — in any case it's not what Wikipedia is about. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• In general terms, I support the spirit of the metric. However, I believe an important criterion which has been overlooked is notability. We are reminded on one hand that WP is not censored, we must also bear in mind another WP:NOT - that it is not a directory or art gallery for all who want to post images of their own creation. It appears that this has become a battleground for certain editors to push their own attacks for or against Mohammed, so we should equally be reminded that WP is not a battleground. All images in the gallery MUST have been the subject of a third party write-up to qualify. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FB Groups' logo

• First of all I've been told there is a consensus on the gallery inclusion rules but I do not see an OPPOSE/SUPPORT vote on this page. We need to call a consensus vote.
• In any case the picture of green backround with Muhammed wielding a daggeris the logo of EDMD's Facebook page since April 27th and should be given exemption from rule #5. It is one of the original 12 cartoons published in 2006 which gave rise to this whole international movement.Alatari (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources using the image (I spent two hours on this... perhaps most sources are too nervous to reprint a picture of the FB page? Do Google cache pages usually disappear after a preset time limit?) :

Front page which will end eventually so I took a screen shot

WareGround IT News

April Google cache

the May 22nd cached image has been deleted by someone

InstaPundit Alatari (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify this image is found on Wikipedia and referenced externally and by many pages:

[Jyllands paper photo]

[Egyptian paper rprint]

• • Support This image is notable choice for the EDMD FB page and deserves an exception. Alatari (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been discussed plenty already, above. The criteria laid out at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed are sufficient. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a vote like this anywhere on those rules. Alatari (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There were multiple comments by different editors. -- Cirt (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But no clearly readable OPPOSE/SUPPORT up or down vote. What is there is a mishmash of hard to digest debate. Alatari (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. What is there is a discussion of multiple different editors with a consensus that exists to support the criteria at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be a problem to summarize those views from what is written. Alatari (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the summary is that a consensus of editors, from discussion above on this page, supports a Gallery, utilizing the criteria at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will summarize their support then. Alatari (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I found 4 for and 3 against. There were some horribly bad taste photos uploaded that day and I will gladly join in the SUPPORT column but not for an image that is secondarily sourced and primary to the EDMD FB page. WP:NOT#CENSORED Alatari (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Oppose vote from Greg L in comments below. Alatari (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

[[:Image:Page-1-of-El-Fagr.org-egyptian-newspaper-Oct-17-2005.jpg|125px|thumb|right|I remind you that I'm talking about this very same image of Mohammed with a dagger in the Good Rated article Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.]]

Alatari, just what are you up to now? IMHO, picture of green backround with Muhammed wielding a dagger has zero business being in the gallery because turning up the ol’ Common-Sense-O-Meter to just 50% shows the image is needlessly provocative. The link you provided ultimately comes from this page at Reclusive Leftist. Are you thinking Reclusive Leftist is an R.S.? Are you also thinking they’ve relinquished their copyright claims on their Web site? Why would you want to include images that are needlessly provocative? Imagine this: National Geographic might one day have an article on Islam and has a sidebar regarding Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Suppose the drawing in the sidebar shows Mohammed chopping the head off an infidel while screwing a goat. Just because the image achieved great notability and came from a highly reliable RS (which I seriously doubt Reclusive Leftist amounts to), is zero reason at all to strip the wikipedian community of our freedom of editorial control over what we think is appropriate in this article, and force us to become a party to being needlessly offensive to Muslims. The gallery is there to help illustrate the subject matter while maintaining a decent modicum of encyclopedic tastefulness; it is not a forum for Islam-bashing. Just drop it, please. Greg L (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The link you suggest is not the only source and you mis-characterize my intent. I have no idea where you got your link but it is not one I provided. My 5 links are listed above in this vote. This would be a fallacy of the straw man by setting up a premise that I had nothing to do with and shooting it down. You mis-characterize my intent, the FB page used that image as their choice of graphical representation. I don't want it for the gallery but as another side bar image related to text on the FB page. Your argument is vacuous for the image already exists on Wikipedia (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) and is a fallacy of the loaded question suggesting I will destroy Wikipedia's rights by adhering to WP:NOT#CENSORED. Oh and you are failing to assume good faith. Alatari (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I see you are one of those who employ that ol’ “I linked it blue so it must be true”-stunt. WP:NOT#CENSORED means Wikipedia will feature encyclopedic content that not everyone agrees with; it does not mean “Alatari gets his way” or “anything goes.” Note our Pornographic film article. The images there illustrate the topic and do so without showing a 20-second-long Theora video showing a closeup of wet genitals doing the “penetration thing.” What do you wanna bet some *wikipedian* citing “censorship” has tried just that very stunt before? So just stop hiding your arguments behind the aprons strings of “censorship”; the whole thrust of your argument is utterly bankrupt and without foundation. Greg L (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We should not confuse editorial control with editorial cowardice. If (when) editors change the text of articles to remove information that is particularly offensive to their point of view, I take issue with that also. If the protest is anti-Muslim, that should be illustrated, just as anti-Semitism is illustrated with well-known images offensive to Jews. Wnt (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You've made your point again by setting up a straw man and burning it; you have not looked at my links and are going off on a tangent. You are now also attacking me personally. I don't own this page and neither do you and you do not know what limits I have to censorship. I did state above that there were some horrific images uploaded on May 20th and I would not support them and would support #5 of the guidelines listed above for those images. This image has a special standing and has precedent of existing elsewhere on Wikipedia (see above links). Alatari (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm… so you hopped onto the “you personally attacked me” bandwagon did you now? That’ll get you nowhere. I can see you certainly have your opinions though. Unfortunately for you, the wikipedian community has as much right to decide what images go into our articles as we have the right to decide what verbiage goes into the body text of our articles. Period. Full stop. Writing encyclopedic articles is entirely about tone, tenor, balancing proper weight vs. undo weight, and keeping article content germane, topical, and to-the-point. Wrapping yourself in the ol’ WP:NOT#CENSORED banner won’t change any of that. Period. Full stop. You don’t like that fact? Well… So sad – too bad. Your jumping up and down, donning orange robes, and setting yourself alight with arguments over how you’re not getting your way with article content because it is an image™®© and deciding which images (vs. words) are appropriate amounts to “censorship” is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Pakistan has already blocked Facebook and Flicker over this issue and the associated depictions of Mohammed. The only reason they haven’t done so (for very long) with Wikipedia is because if it walks, talks, and waddles like an encyclopedia, then it is an encyclopedia—and there is a presumption that Wikipedia occupies the moral high ground. This particular article is not for Islam-bashing; the picture you’re all hung up on belongs on Criticism of Islam, not here. Greg L (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Man Greg, you are quite a genius and a man who knows how to debate but, you are arguing against years of consensus. This very same picture has been debated on many pages and the conclusion every time was to KEEP and to tag the article with

and

Alatari (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? That’s your ante? I’ll meet your absurd cartoon box with one of my own and raise you four bullet points:

Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment; one doesn’t always get what they want. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• No time/inclination to create yet another template, but agree w/Greg.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium/Jimbo Wales' proposal (sourced cartoons only)

If we're holding straw polls, let's hold this one: who supports Jimbo Wales' idea that we should stick to cartoons published in reliable sources? A necessary consequence of this is that Fair Use images should be used, as there is no replacement for the image that a reliable source chose to use.

I support Jimbo Wales' solution, because I think the PD gallery cartoons uploaded to Commons are of a lower general quality than average; and because people here are trying to use things like "rule#5" to force a strong POV on the article, even to the point of propaganda. I should add that I'd hoped people here could agree on a representative sample of artwork, that better graphics would be released under free licenses, that censorship would be rejected, etc; and resorting to sourced selections from the media does impose general media bias on the article; but their bias now seems less than our bias. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Sourced images are fine… if our copyright rules say we can use them; I’m not at all sure of that. Even then, we still mustn’t be letting editors come here and allege that because a reliable secondary source showed a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a lit bomb for a turban, that such a circumstance means we must feature the image here (you know; where said editor wraps him or herself in the flag of censorship as if that magically deprives wikipedians of our ability to decide what content is appropriate for any given article on Wikipedia).

  I’m as scientific and non-religious as they come but, IMHO, this article should not be needlessly inflammatory and offensive to Muslims; Wikipedia just doesn’t need that. If Wikipedia continues to look like an unbiased, quality encyclopedia, we occupy the moral highground. The world should not perceive that Wikipedia has been unnecessarily hijacked by the West for Islam-bashing. User:Wnt does not apparently see the wisdom of #5, but others here clearly do and find it strikes a fair and proper balance for the bests interests of our readership as a whole and for Wikipedia’s credibility and worldwide standing. Moreover, I think it clear from her poster, that founder of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day did not envision May 20th to be a “Bash Mohammed Day.”

  More importantly, I’m not at all sure Jimbo thought through the full implications of “fair use” requirements of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. As I understand the issues (and I’m not exactly *new* to this stuff), we can not make a fair use claim unless A) there are no free alternatives and B) the images directly describe the subject matter (in this case: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day). I think it is utterly pointless to put the cart before the horse and start considering how we might use copyrighted, non-free images until someone first pulls in an images/fair-use expert to weigh in on this matter. Greg L (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not breaking any new ground on either point: Jyllands-Posten ran cartoons that were very widely considered offensive, and we printed the cartoons that they ran under fair use. We should, however, take any opportunity we can fit in here to describe the reliable source that published the cartoon and the reason why they published it - for example, you might say in the caption that publication X ran the cartoon with the caption that it was a typical example or that it exemplified the sort of cartoon that was giving Muslims offense, or that they ran it beside an editorial subtitled "Muslims need to grow a thicker skin", etc.

As an aside, it would also be interesting to explore whether Western notions of offensiveness even translate in this case. I've read that theoretically, Islam prohibits images of Muhammed because they are seen as a form of idolatry (worship of Muhammed rather than Allah). If that's really so, I wonder whether an image with a strong anti-Muslim slant is really more offensive than one which is drawn with a favorable connotation? But it wouldn't actually be relevant. Wnt (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the subject matter, I can see a strong point for splitting this article entirely, to avoid confusing readers between the initial cartoon and the disavowed protest. But if both are covered in the same article then both are the subject matter. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I support limiting illustrations to those which have been reprinted by reliable sources, even though that should turn out to be zero. Then, depending on whether these are freely licenced or not we could put up a gallery or show a more limited number with fair use rationale. __meco (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional I basically agree with GregL. I'd prefer to limit ourselves to sourced images if we can get several of them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, and as a consequence remove the current gallery. Even if one doesn't agree that showing drawings that haven't been discussed by RS is a violation of verifiability and no original research, it introduces NPOV concerns which doesn't seem possible to resolve. Relying on the (reliable) secondary sources solves most of the problem. Of course we can still apply editorial discretion on which drawings to use among those discussed by RS. Note that I had 'proposed' this before Jimbo [22]. The two images outside the gallery satisfy the requirements. Cenarium (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Cenarium. --JN466 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the current gallery should be removed, with the reservation that the link to Wikimedia Commons media should not be removed, nor should the media be removed on Wikimedia Commons just because they don't appear in an article gallery. Initially I thought Commons would need to cull such images because they'd be deluged by thousands of amateur artists posting their own works, but apparently there are only a few images available with kosher-for-passover grade licenses that we can keep on Commons, so there's no need. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Per Greg L, if (big if) we can use non-free images from Reliable Sources, then we can add some of those to the gallery. It seems we are likely going to be limited to community-supplied images, which is common for images on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. SteveB67 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Per the above three conditional supports.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional per the discussion above. I don't think I have new views or information to bring to this discussion but I believe that this case is somewhat unique and warrants the metric with the conditional statements made above. So basically, if we can get sourced images, that's great. I believe the gallery is fundamentally needed so if images cannot be found that are sourced, the metric should be used. OlYeller^Talktome 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to the gallery without fair use images?

The end of this article as currently written has two little boxes, one of which you click to expand a gallery, one of which you click to go to the Wikimedia Commons category. Both contain the same set of images, though Commons has a few extra versions. Right now it seems keeping the gallery is a victory without victory.

People above have argued against "fair use" images, but I don't see the problem — provided we cite which secondary source chose to use the fair use image in the text, and explain what they said about that particular image (however little that may be). Wnt (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Aisha follows the prophet.png

Aisha follows the prophet

• Now you’re just forum-shopping within this talk page. We’ve been over all this over, above, at…

1. #Edit request from Towel42 reddit, 23 May 2010 - please add this image to the gallery
2. #Metric for choosing additions to the gallery of depictions of Mohammed
3. #Isn't the entire gallery original research?
4. #Cenarium/Jimbo Wales' proposal (sourced cartoons only)

…you keep raising the same points as if you are just hoping to catch a bunch of those who disagree with you while they are asleep at the switch because they grew fatigued. A consensus is not made simply by wearing others down because you are uniquely happy to flog the dead horse over the same tired old issues until the heat death of the universe.

It couldn’t be any clearer from the #4 link above, that the community thinks there is a role for fair-use images—conditionally depending on copyright issues and Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The reasoning is fully well explained above. But, not getting your way in the thread above, you raised the exact same issue again with only minor phrasing changes (you can’t put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as your second entry for the kissing booth at the state fair).

While advocating for the inclusion of the image at right, you opined Wikipedia's role is not to "sanitize" the protest and make it look like it was an Islam-friendly event! (complete with ‘your oh-so-excited’ exclamation point at the end). The community apparently doesn’t agree and fears it unwise to allow this article to be hijacked for Islam-bashing. You don’t like that. Well, as they say in the military: “So sad – too bad.” If you continue to forum-shop like this, it could well be construed as a form of WP:Tendentious editing, which is impermissible because it is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. Please desist. Greg L (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "forum-shopping", even if you could do that within one forum - I was just thinking that "conditional" in the thread #4 I started was eventually going to mean "yes" or "no", so I gave the conversation a prod to see which way it would go. Forgive me for thinking this discussion was supposed to reach a conclusion. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Add this picture to the gallery

File:Mohammed in europe.jpg

Mohammed in Europe

Cmmmm1 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. Sorry. Wikipedia is not a community graffiti wall for you to express your free-speech rights. If *this sort of image* had been featured in a reliable secondary source, it would have sufficient notability. Still, that would leave this question: “In what Wikipedia article might it be suitable?” Perhaps an article like Criticism of Islam. Even then, it still might not have ever been suitable for inclusion in such an article because the community there might not think it properly illustrates the subject of the body text and/or it might be impossible to advance a proper fair-use rationale to use copyrighted material (reliable sources invariably are copyrighted). Alas, it isn’t from a secondary RS; it’s something you made.

  You best go away now. You’ve been indefinitely banned for your profound disruption to Wikipedia, POV-pusing, and sockpuppetry. Your talk page is mostly just a long list of unanswered complaints and warnings from the community about your disruptive edits and Islam-bashing. Your creation of a new sock (Cmmmm1) to circumvent your perpetual ban so you could make your post here did not even merit this expansive of a response. If you persist at this sort of thing, Wikipedia can protect itself with a range-block on your I.P. address and you’ll be seriously shut out of Wikipedia. I suggest you get with the game plan and tread damn carefully if you want to sneak under the radar any further. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But if his cartoon was submitted to the Facebook event, and if it was permitted to remain there, then how is it different from the other self-authored images in the current gallery? Wnt (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That’s a theoretical conjecture regarding circumstances that don’t exist and doesn’t really deserve a response, IMO. What if your conjecture was reality?? See the above five threads (a four-point list is enumerated in the fifth thread here) in which you participated and should have a clear appreciation of their contents. Even though you disagree with what others are saying there, you will *get it* eventually. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you're saying that "eclectic and tasteful" is community consensus, and not just the view of a few editors? Did I miss the vote? Besides, I'd say that this picture is a real cartoon drawn with some artistic style, not just a pencilled scribble like half the images in that gallery, and so it's at least more eclectic, if not more tasteful. Can you really tell me with a straight face that File:This is prophet Mohammed by hegtor.jpg is a better editorial choice for an encyclopedia to make? Really? Wnt (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you call this theoretical. I think I saw this cartoon in the Everybody Draw Muhammed Day page somewhere, but there were so many images it's hard to remember for sure. I asked the poster to specify whether it was (and various other useful information) in the AfD referenced below, but as you mentioned he was banned, about 20 minutes after I asked the questions, and he doesn't have an email address set. Wnt (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you: So you're saying that "eclectic and tasteful" is community consensus, and not just the view of a few editors? Did I miss the vote? No you didn’t miss the vote; yours is the sixth vote down here. I’m saying I will no longer respond to posts from you on this topic for you are too tendentious and we’ve gone full-circle at least once. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that you've spoken about me here as if I were spamming this forum or as if it were inappropriate for me to submit responses defending Wikipedia's policies. But you're the one whose name appears on the current talk page about 86 times. With this signature I'm up to about 19, which I admit is a bit high, but I think it's necessary here to defend NPOV. And I feel like your choice to stop responding isn't because we've gone full circle, but because you really can't say with a straight face that that other file is better! Wnt (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've added a mention of that summary of "votes" above, but I don't think it's proper to go through a section after the fact and categorize support and oppose, when it was never announced as a vote in the first place. I must have seen hundreds of votes on Wikipedia, and they usually get announced ahead of time, they have "support" and "oppose" put in bold face at the start (by the voters, that is), and they don't get closed 6-to-3 by surprise after people were never aware they were going on. Wnt (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I’m beginning to gain some insight into why User:Cirt grew tired of working on this article and threw in the towel. (*sigh*) Be my guest; put the damned picture in the gallery. I won’t delete it because I’m sick & tired of arguing with you. We’ll see how the community deals with you and this picture you think is a campy idea and is appropriate for this article. My prediction is that at least the picture will get deleted, and possibly the whole damned gallery too. In advance: Smooth move. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

NOTICE

The above picture has been nominated for deletion. To discuss it, please go here.

---

I agree with GregL on this. If that pic is added to the article without prior consensus, I'll remove it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Greg L: Wikipedia is not a place for people to practice their free speech (see WP:NOTFREESPEECH). This kind of page has been created before: Wikipedia Art controversy is now a redirect; just prior to being replaced with a redirect, it looked like this (that's after all the cruft intended by its author was cleaned out). The background is that two artists decided that it would be fun to declare a collaborative art project where people could express themselves on the article page (community art on Wikipedia). The attempt was rejected by Wikipedians, and there was then an attempt to keep the article as a "controversy". Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I myself suggested removing the entire gallery of user-submitted images from this article, as it duplicates the Commons link. Therefore, I wasn't particularly thinking about adding the image to the gallery in this article; rather, it should be placed into the appropriate category on Commons.

I cannot understand the emotional attachment that people have, to a policy that represents neither the Muslim view that images of Muhammed are forbidden, nor many gallery participants' view that Islam should be fair game for harsh criticism, but rather some censorious "politically correct" view that user submitted pictures of Muhammed are great, unless they disparage Islam as a religion. This imposes a bias on the article that is alien to both sides of the dispute.

I should not deny that, all precedent and hopes aside, it has become ever more common, even usual, to find Wikipedia articles on any political topic deliberately censored and slanted so as to humor the viewpoints of the most active reverters. I fear that as the 2010 election comes, we are going to come to a point where politically active people will end up in the position of deciding whether they wish to encourage people in their party to set up multiple accounts and edit-war frantically to dominate the content, or else to campaign widely and publicly for people to reject Wikipedia as a resource and to turn to other, copyrighted, sympathetic sources of information as the only way to obtain a fair view of the issues. I have not yet adopted a position on this, hoping against hope that the breach can be averted, but ... we will know by November. I wish that we could have adopted an inclusionist attitude, with every side expressing its point of view only by its additions, but Wikipedia has just become too valuable for partisans not to seize and plunder. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you: I cannot understand the emotional attachment that people have, to a policy that represents neither the Muslim view that images of Muhammed are forbidden, nor many gallery participants' view that Islam should be fair game for harsh criticism, but rather some censorious "politically correct" view that user submitted pictures of Muhammed are great… Well there’s the problem. Your understanding of what an encyclopedia is all about markedly varies from that of the rest of us here.

Let’s parse the above-quoted bit.

1. …represents neither the Muslim view that images of Muhammed are forbidden… Ahhh, that’s an easy one to address. Wikipedia is not Islam; it’s is an encyclopedia. That’s what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about; not your right have your way and make political statements.
2. …nor many gallery participants' view that Islam should be fair game for harsh criticism… What do you know?? This one is easy too! The topic Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is not about ‘directing harsh criticism at Islam’; it is about a day proposed—partially tongue-in-cheek—by Molly Norris so “if millions of people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamist terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic.”

Accordingly, there is a Commons category featuring depictions of Mohammed that have been contributed by people hailing from all over the world. The wikipedian community that is engaged in this article chose a wide spectrum of those that appropriately illustrate the subject matter in fashion that is germane and topical. “Germane and topical,” you ask? Yes, quite simply depictions of Mohammed—and in the spirit Molly clearly intended as evidenced by her poster; nothing more, nothing less.

Somewhere along the lines, you seem to have developed the theory that a gallery intended strictly for depictions of Mohammed (in keeping with Everybody Draw Mohammed Day) should be broader than that and ought to delve into territory where wikipedians can make political statements about how Islam isn’t welcome in Europe. The rest of us recognize the following about yours and User:Cmmmm’s theory: A) that isn’t what this article is about, and B) trying to accomplish that end by depicting Islam as a turban-wearing pig being righteously booted out of Europe by a blonde goddess-of-justice-looking character is so far beyond the line of POV-pushing, it’s truly absurd.

As to your concluding bit: …but Wikipedia has just become too valuable for partisans not to seize and plunder, <smile> Greg L (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that the founder dissociated herself from the event, I'm not sure why her intent is supposed to be relevant. The point is, if you actually looked at this page while it was up, you'd see pictures like this, Muhammad appearing in the flames of the World Trade Center, etc. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If Everybody Draw Mohammed Day clearly and really becomes a day that is highly notable for the types of drawings you like (Islam / Mohammed-bashing) and this is evidenced by reliable secondary sources, then Wikipedia can (and should) reflect that fact. However, we would still be faced with the problem of establishing fair use of non-free content. Perhaps that wouldn’t be insurmountable. What the wikipedian community currently has no stomach for—and rightly so—is in trying to lead the pack with original thought with regard to what some here would like the day to become. Just because some Islam-bashing Web sites exist, does not mean that Everybody Draw Mohammed Day has become highly notable for that sort of thing, nor does it mean the Islam-bashing Web sites are reliable sources. Greg L (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know we should only be talking about one such site, the Facebook page that got banned in Pakistan and which since seems to have disappeared altogether. Am I wrong here? It is true that because (while it was open) any Wikipedian could submit a photo to that site, then reference it here (provided the site maintainers didn't delete it), we had a situation where we could be breathing our own exhaust. That's why I want a gallery of fair use images chosen by secondary sources to be what appears here. But if we're going to have these Wikipedia self-generated articles in a gallery, then it's no less original research to delete some of them based on the points they make, then to leave all of them — and actually more so, I think. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. You said that before. You know, it’s easy to have black & white solutions; dealing with shades of gray is tougher. We have processes in place to arrive at compromise solutions and to achieve consensus in a collaborative writing environment because Wikipedia is not an anarchy. Your solution seems to be 1) include the picture showing all of Islam as a turban-wearing pig being righteously booted out of Europe by a blonde goddess-of-justice-looking character, or 2) get rid of the gallery altogether if you don’t get your way where it’s “anything goes”. Achieving an encyclopedic middle ground takes some work to deal with nuances, such as the above 12-point guideline. Have it dawned on your that the above picture hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted by the community? Are you still holding out hope? Or do you just like to debate and argue? Dealing with you is increasingly making me think that arguing on the Internet just isn’t for me. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reaction surprises me, because for the past two days I've had all that I want with regard to inclusion of the above picture: it is present in the Commons category, which is linked from this article. What still needs to be done (which I think I'm in agreement with e.g. Jimbo Wales about) is that the current gallery of non-notable pictures should be taken out of this article, and a new gallery (or more prominent inline display) of additional fair use images should go in. There's been considerable naysaying about fair use images for this purpose, and that's a community opinion that I've respected and waited to hear more discussion about (though I haven't really heard any further discussion of it, despite prodding).

Your "compromise" solution involves having a duplicate mechanism of viewing the artwork, which includes only a subset of the images, and not two of the best-drawn images. I think that if you told a Muslim that you'd dealt with the nasty Muhammad drawings on Commons by copying them to an extra display block inside the Wikipedia article, but leaving out a few that had a more bigoted tone, you might not get the effusive thanks that you seem to be expecting. Wnt (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)