Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 2

Why is the gallery hidden?

I went through all the above comments but I couldn't find any discussion of this. I think this is inappropriate for Wikipedia; a better solution would be to match what was done at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Disable image display and suggest that users who don't want to see the images change their settings to block them. The presence of such images in this article is very unlikely to catch a reader by surprise, given that they're at the very bottom of the article. This seems contrary to long-standing WP guidelines such as WP:No disclaimers in articles (yes, it's not actually a disclaimer, but serves the same function), WP:NOTCENSORED, etc. Was there a discussion on this that I missed? cmadler (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this hardly seems shocking to many readers.

• I was wondering the same thing and am glad you brought it up. I don’t know who hid the gallery behind the [show] tag. Indeed, there doesn’t appear to have been any discussion here about that.

  Though I personally can’t comprehend the notion that images like the one shown at right can *shock the sensibilities* of people, I can understand that it might; particularly if editors were to get their way and have the gallery feature images like the two in the recent threads, above. Accordingly , I don’t have a problem with the gallery being hidden with a [show] button to click on. Those who might claim that Wikipedia should be more sensitive to the religious sensibilities of Muslims don’t have a leg to stand if we give fair disclosure of the nature of what they will be exposed to if they elect to click the link. It’s much like those “graphic content” disclaimers at the beginning of certain TV shows.

  Frankly, I wish there were more of these [show] things on Wikipedia. I wouldn’t mind them at all on… (now, you’ve been hereby warned)… Vulva and Masturbation#Male. I wonder: was there a long debate and community consensus to show a shaved vulva? Or did someone’s contribution of that shaved vulva end up being grandfathered (grandmothered) in, in which case, that might constitute WP:OR? I suppose all those images can be considered *encyclopedic*, germane, and topical, but I have no doubt that some wikipedians thoroughly enjoy hiding being provocative behind the apron strings of WP:NOTCENSORED. There are less shocking ways of handling images like those while still making the information available. I mention this to make a point via analogy that some Muslims will no-doubt be just as shocked by depictions of Mohammed.

  Bottom line: my right to see germane and topical images isn’t diminished to any practical extent via the [show] tag, I don’t really see any harm, and I can imagine that it does good. But… that’s just my 2¢ regarding the gallery. I am certainly anxious to hear how others feel about the [show] tag. I would propose that there be a clear consensus to not have the [show] technique before we change what we have. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it, as I agree with Cmadler. I do think, though, that the gallery should be removed, and the pictures be interspersed through the article, as per WP:IG. Madlobster (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to go back to the hidden gallery. --JN466 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• No kidding. The issue had been discussed for something like 18 hours and Madlobster took the WP:BOLD step of reverting it. Because his opinion was so meritorious that others could not possibly disagree with him here as we further discuss the issue? I think we should give others an opportunity to weigh in here on the issue and try to determine a true community consensus. I restored it to the stable state it was in when we rode through May 20th without too much controversy being directed at all of en.Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that this thread here was mentioned at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard:Cock and ball torture (NSFW). I would suggest this be the criteria in judging whether a [show] button might be best: Articles where readers would certainly expect to see graphic, explicit, or potentially offensive images by virtue of the article title do not need [show] buttons. By this metric, readers certainly know what to expect if they go to articles like Vulva, Masturbation, or Cock and ball torture (sexual practice). Those article titles make it pretty obvious, don’t they? So too for Depictions of Muhammad; readers have got to know what is awaiting them. I’m not quite convinced yet that readers can expect to see depictions of Mohammed when they go to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. The remedy (clicking on a [show] button) is easy enough.

I find that arguments that such a profoundly easy step amounts to “censorship” to be shear nonsense—the images are there for all to see if they click on the button. I would much rather editors manned up and stated something that had that necessary element of ‘truthiness’, like “Readers shouldn’t have to take even that little step of clicking a [show] button just to mollify some crybabies.” Whereas I might disagree with such a position (I’m not sure), at least such a position has a basis in actual fact.

What is at stake here is having all of Wikipedia take a hit and get into the news because some country like Pakistan blocks en.Wikipedia over this one article (they apparently toyed with that for a few hours on May 20th). I see no reason to be so provocative and try to hide behind the apron strings of righteous indignation over “censorship” when nothing of the sort is actually occurring. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed at the above link, there's has been a general style of not hiding content in articles as a matter of taste. Before this was established, it wasn't even clear, for example, even whether editors should hide "spoilers" when writing articles about movies. I haven't felt that this issue is relevant here because I want to see the gallery give way to notable images in the text plus the commons link, but I'm certainly not going to support this article being used as a precedent to change this practice throughout Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that a reader going to an article about "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" would be surprised to see a drawing of Mohammed. Further, the gallery is way down at the bottom of the article, so even if they had no clue when they clicked the link, by the time they get to the gallery, they know what it's all about. Personally, I agree with Jimbo's comment about the gallery being OR, and I'm not a big fan of image galleries in general, but if we are to have a gallery, then let's just have the gallery and not try to hide it. cmadler (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning (I think it's unlikely that a reader going to an article about "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" would be surprised to see a drawing of Mohammed.) makes sense, Cmadler. I think your feelings are perfectly clear, as are mine. Let’s see what others say, shall we? Greg L (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that collapsing is akin to censorship: it's all about hiding stuff and making it difficult to see, because someone might get offended. But wikipedia doesn't censor images or text that people might find offensive. Also, slippery slope as editors start pointing to this article as an example of "it's already being done at article X"[1]. Personally, also, the whole gallery should be nuked and replaced with specific images that received actual coverage at secondary sources. Galleries with no commentary belong to commons and not here.

(Also, you are not following WP:BRD: you were bold[2], you were reverted 19 days later[3]. You are now supposed to discuss it instead of reverting it back yourself[4]). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"because someone might get offended": Is there actually anything wrong with not doing something because someone else might be offended? I thought it was a rather normal part of people living together, and I suspect those who argue against it here do it many times each day in their lives. --JN466 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine; I respect the views in your first paragraph, User:Enric Naval. Note that I didn’t make the gallery collapsed; don’t know who did. In fact, I personally took umbrage upon first seeing it. I do note, however, that the article was stable for the ride through May 20th with it collapsed like that and the article didn’t attract negative attention to Wikipedia in the press. Given that it’s been that way for weeks, I think it’s entirely appropriate to keep our mitts off of it unless there is a clear consensus to change it. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled here. Enric's first diff above shows that Cirt, who was the principal author of this article, collapsed the gallery. --JN466 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn’t surprise me. Cirt did a magnificent job balancing being the principle, shepherding author against being accused of ownership issues. Without his (enormous) efforts, this article wouldn’t be nearly what it is. I’m sure he had a reason to collapse it. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use cartoon candidates

I've started a tabulation below of the things proposed as secondarily sourced cartoons above. I feel that those cartoons that have been described in articles are irreplaceable fair use submissions, which can be justified, provided that we talk about what the secondary sources actually said about the cartoons. If you've posted references I've missed, please add them to this table! Thanks. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Link	Author	Title	Date	Published in	Notes
MP|31.20.05.12&F=2]	Zapiro			Mail & Guardian (ZA) (later apologized: [5])	Editorial comment by The Guardian (UK): [6], Christian Science Monitor (dead) [7],
[8]	Mark Fiore	Inky al-Jihadi (video)	2010-05-19		Described in [9]
[10]	Anonymous students on "campuses"		2010-05-21	CNN	Includes some Muslim students' alterations
[11]	Unattributed		2010-05-20	Catholic Online	Might not be copyrightable
[12]	Three submitted images		2010-05-20	Reason Magazine	One of these is already in the article. I'm annoyed by an apparent lack of attribution to the original authors.

• Other than the fact that they are not clearly in the public domain (free), they appear to pass the 12-point metric that others here think is the best guideline for the moment. I certainly don’t look forward to trying to take non-free content and make a fair-use argument since all my previous attempts at this sort of thing were about as much fun as a stick in the eye. Be my guest. Go get ‘em, upload them to image files, make your best fair-use argument you can muster, and see if they fly. As I’ve mentioned many times above, I think whoever advocates grabbing fair-use images should first go find an images copyright expert and seek his or her counsel. Why? Because one of Wikipedia's requirements is that there be no free alternatives that could conceivably be available. That sort of rule applies to things like movie posters. I doubt it applies to this. I’ve said all this before, yet here you are again, agitating for something when it should be clear as glass what the hurdles are to using non-free content. So, you go do the heavy lifting on making a fair-use argument or find someone willing to do it for you. BTW, I personally loved campus Mohammed image and had seen it the day it came out on CNN. I just don’t look forward to fighting fair-use battles; particularly ones that appear to be an uphill, loosing battle from the start. Greg L (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCI says acceptable non-free use includes "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." I think that probably could apply here, but definitely not in an image gallery, they would need to be incorporated into the article. cmadler (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If adding non-free content into the body text makes the article better, great. Let’s tackle this on an image-by-image basis. I’d personally love to see campus Mohammed added to the article because it very effectively makes a point that speaks to a world-view I hold dear: “The proper response to bad speech is better speech.” It beats the heck out of putting a $100,000 bounty on the heads of those have *insulted* their religion. Whoever advocates adding a non-free image needs to do all the heavy lifting of adding accompanying (germane and topical) body text; we can’t have editors doing the easy part (add the image) and leave the tough part for someone else to clean up. Greg L (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose uncoverage.net might not be a Wikipedia-grade reliable source, but it's a pity.[13] Wnt (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that their article on Sarah Palin’s “racks” doesn’t lend to an “RS” feeling; indeed. Why worry about uncoverage.net when one can refer directly to a CNN report? Greg L (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet, they make the interesting claim that this was a reaction to a plot to kill Lars Vilks the month before, which we mention only in a See Also link... Here's another assortment of cartoons ([14]) - do you suppose EuropeNews is a reliable source? Wnt (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wnt; europenews looks like an RS to me. If you (or another volunteer) are willing to revise the body text so a graphic illustrates the body text and are willing to make a fair-use claim, and if you think there are some graphics on europenews that will enhance this article and make it more complete and encyclopedic, please suggest which specific ones you have in mind. It seems that any of those pictures—even the ones that are quite critical of Islam (the kind you like)—would be especially suitable if they were the subject of some other RS’s article referencing or speaking about the europenews contest and its gallery. That would establish a degree of notability I suspect we will need to make a fair-use claim here. Maybe I’m wrong on that; duknown. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I've been delaying doing this. I just recently lost a Fair Use image I posted two years back that I'd thought would be retained without trouble, and I haven't gotten around to figuring out what is hexed with the process. Wnt (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

these galleries should be removed. talk

File:Reason Magazine contest winner 2010 May 20.jpg

Shouldn't be the image in the public domain? Because according to {{PD-textlogo}} This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, unlike the main infobox image. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I suspect that image does meet the threshold of originality. cmadler (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, for additional sources

First of all, this is quite unacceptable that people do not respect other people's belief and viewpoints. Everybody has the freedom to do anything they want, but doesn't the idea of "respect" take precedence? Isn't that the fundamental element of our society? A person cannot go rape another human being. Even though the person has the freedom to do anything (not legally) but our legal system dictates that this sort of act is forbidden because human beings should respect one another. So how is this specific idea different? Anyway, I would like to point out that Ref# 1: "Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur'an.[1]" does not mention ANYTHING to prove this point. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.91.34 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Some people apparently were searching with way too narrow inputs. For example, 44 results for "everybody draw" and "south park". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, I don't care about this self-important website's absurd rules on "neutrality" which are really the reinforcement of a single point of view. This article IS racist, biased shit, pure and simple, written from an EXTREMELY american viewpoint (where freedom is regarded from one angle only; freedom to, not freedom from, like a petulant toddler) Racist, offensive, needless rubbish. The huge inherent racist bias in this article is clear and wikipedia should lose all credibility for protecting it's offensive content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.20.159 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Believing in freedom of speech is a point of view, yes; but it's a point of view that is exceptionally convenient for those seeking to work together to create a gigantic free encyclopedia that discusses current and controversial events. But there is no racism in this point of view — not unless we surrender and accept the bigoted notion that the people of the Arab world will never achieve the rights we treasure in the West. That notion, however popular, is belied by the history of Islam's golden age, from the time when they were known for tolerance and it was Christendom that was racked by inquisitions and witch-hunts. Therefore I embrace freedom of speech believing not only that it is a higher aspiration of Americans, but also of Pakistanis and all others throughout the world — even if some people in each country don't know it yet. Wnt (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually in the American political tradition dating back to the Founders, the discussion of liberty and rights more generally focused on negative liberty, rather than positive, thus your ridiculous tirade about "freedom to" being "EXTREMELY american" (emphasis yours)is completely bogus, but not quite as bogus and stupid as your assertion that anything deemed offensive should somehow be removed from this site or never even posted in the first place. As for being a petulant toddler, given the tone of your comment, I think perhaps you should look in the mirror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.78.34 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Molly Norris withdraws from Everybody Draw Mohammed day Contest.

A press release by Molly Norris dated 1 June 2010 says that she had backed out of the contest and she is supporting the Facebook community of Ban on Everybody Draw Mohammed day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.254.18 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

True, the LA Times also reports this [15]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Graceful5, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I did not say that "millions of people" should draw Mohammed. I never said a number! It was a CONCEPT that was not meant to be taken literally! Please adjust. Thank you, Molly Norris Graceful5 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Due to a source, not claims you are Norris. CTJF83 pride 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protections

We just came off semi-protection. To those of you who have been around, leep an eye out for devious edits, please. OlYeller^Talktome 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fan page

This article is written like a fan page for the event - as in "look how many papers wrote about it". It's 100k of detail clutter - and I want it down to 50-80k and ~80 quotes. It's not really interesting what every paper wrote about it. Chaan (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that the article could probably use some trimming. I don't like the overall size but I've looked to trim portions before and never saw an area that glaringly needed chopped down. At first, I was happy to get all information included as it was presented but it's pretty tubby now. Want to go section by section with suggestions? I'm not sure how involved the major contributors are now but I'm sure they'd like to give their opinion if they're still watching. OlYeller^Talktome 02:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article looks better now although the same size. I wasn't interested in your offer because a) I'm not suited for choosing what details to chop b) one or a few people could not handle this anyway, it's a general notice to not overcrowd articles with details like at what time that newspaper wrote that, and then another paper wrote the same things two hours later. People should stop each other from entering meaningless material. I can see that from a journalist point of view it's interesting to know all those details but journalists must be prapared to do their own research, Wikipedia should be written in a way that an outsider can read and understand an article without getting stopped by zillions of clutter details and footnotes. The section Pakistan internet block is too big at the moment. But what makes it still look like a fan page is not the text anymore, it's the images now. The original drawing must be included but the whole scetch section makes the article look like Wikipedia is a part of the event, wait it is actually. And, it shouldn't. If some real artists or cartoonists drew Mohammed/Mohammad that day, then that image should be shown as an example, if it is fair use or licensed as free use. Chaan (talk)

Molly Norris put on hitlist by cleric

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/11/2010-07-11_cleric_anwar_alawlaki_puts_everybody_draw_mohammed_cartoonist_molly_norris_on_ex.html Liquidpappe (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Title

I got a note from someone suggesting that the title of this entry should be changed to something like "Facebook group controversy Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" - I don't care for that one but think that the point raised by my correspondent is probably accurate. The current title seems to contemplate this being an actual annual holiday or something, and that it is notable in and of itself. But it is only notable due to the controversy, particularly in Pakistan and the blogosphere. Therefore shouldn't the article be titled with the word 'controversy'?

I am only passing this along; I don't intend to get involved in a long discussion of it here or on my talk page. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it to us. But I think the current title is fine - the article makes it clear that this refers to the protest this year. There is nothing about this being an annual thing even though Norris's original cartoon spoke about the "first annual Everybody ... Day". I think the protest is notable in and of itself. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the introduction of the article did begin with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is an annual protest" until I changed it, about 36 hours before Jimbo posted the above. Propaniac (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also contend that the present title is appropriate and the proposal finds no resonance in me. This certainly did not rise to notoriety/fame with the Facebook groups which just happened to become the focus of attention on the actual date since no other venues had emerged up to that day. Additionally, it falls within the Category:Unofficial observances and the fact that it has garnered more controversy than the other days in that category doesn't take away from its basic substance as a day of action/observance. Up until May 20 it was a controversy centering on a cartoon poster, but having been emphatically embraced by an international community as such a day, that it became. Another recent example comes to mind with the recent disturbances in connection with the protestant/unionist Orange march (Orange walk) in Northern Ireland which is more known for the controversy it spurs than the reason why it was instituted. I cannot imagine this being renamed to "Orange walk controversy". __meco (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it not necessarily have to be renamed with what like you said, but the point is to make it more neutral. And Orange march would have been renamed if it had as big controversies as this article regarding its title, and if its title was playing up to someone's biased view aside, like here where it looks like it's an actually celebrated day and that on that day happened controversies, then it should be renamed by pointing out that it just an artificially created day by people, who are negatively inclined towards unwelcome (as in theory it's not prohibited, and depictions of Muhammad had taken place by muslims themselves) depiction of Muhammad by Muslim society. And you said "by an international community", can you verify it by citing which countries had officially supported it, quoting, «The international community is a vague term used in international relations to refer to all the governments of the world or to a group of them.» from the article International community. So, like I said, a relatively small group of people shouldn't dictate to wikipedia what day is what. See: Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE. So as you see current title leaves some misrepresentation of this day, so if a little clarification to the title won't break any rules of wikipedia, then so be it. And the facebook group was the one that generated ban by Pakistan, thus created the biggest "controversy" that added another ground to the existing of the article e.g. if it didn't attract any notable attention, hardly it'd have enough ground to start with in the first place. And it was mainly the fault of the facebook group. Userpd (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can’t possibly imagine why we are discussing this. Deciding upon the most appropriate title for any article is best accomplished simply by considering what the subject is about. The key to that is to simply read the first sentence. It reads (as of this writing), as follows:

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a 2010 protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of the prophet Muhammad.

The subject is about “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”; ergo, the title. Simple. However, I have no problem re-titling it Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (and all the kooky crap that sprung from it). Be my guest. Greg L (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article clearly goes beyond what happened on Facebook. The idea started off Facebook and important parts of its history took place before there was a Facebook page. Putting "Facebook" in the title is inappropriate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What's with the collapsable box around the pics

I removed it and Jimbo reverted. What is the common wisdom? They don't appear in the article space often. My rational to remove it was per "not censored" reasons. If we are going to have the article lets have the pics.--Adam in MO Talk 09:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the idea of removing the collapsible box and keeping the drawings but you removed the entire box including the pictures if I'm not mistaken. OlYeller^Talktome 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't I just removed the box and Jimbo reverted.--Adam in MO Talk 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The box has been there for some time and seems to have been quite helpful in resolving some conflict that was raging here about the appropriateness of various images. It is tasteful and makes for a better presentation of the information in the article. I think that since wiki is not paper, we should make use of such interactive devices far more often throughout the entire encyclopedia, for a variety of different reasons. Importantly, such a device gives readers more control and more choice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding Adamfinmo. I agree with JW here. I feel that it's in good taste to allow readers to choose whether or not they view the images while learning about the subject. I don't see that it takes away from Wikipedia in any way. OlYeller^Talktome 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But having encyclopedic content depend on such JavaScript contraptions also has numerous disadvantages. For example, they negatively impact the reusability of Wikipedia articles in other media - starting from breaking the "Print/Export" functions linked from each article (the printable version will contain the images, but the PDF/book version will confuse readers with an empty "Gallery" section), to larger offline versions of Wikipedia (see e.g. Wikipedia:Snapshots or these Wikimania presentations). For similar reasons, the Manual of Style explicitly discourages such "click here"s: Wikipedia:ASR#Think_about_print.

A similar solution was rejected for the article Rorschach test last year, and I seem to recall from the discussion there that even for readers accessing the Wikipedia article with a normal web browser, the Javascript/CSS tricks created problems (e.g. first showing the images for a few seconds after opening the page, and only collapsing them after several seconds loading time).

I understand the incentive to use this during exceptionally heated conflicts between editors, but even for this article I think it would be preferable to instead have a clear answer on whether or not featuring personal artistic views on an article's topic by random Flickr users is compatible with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE - something I don't see sufficiently addressed in the rules authored by Greg L.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always been against any kind of censorship on Wikipedia for any reason however in this particular case, its fine, since its a whole gallery of images. The article looks better this way. If it was only one or two notable images then it would be fine to display them like here and other places, but these images are only a few of 1000's of images drawn by random anonymous users (and therefore not notable) so I think to show them by default would make the page look a bit immature and a waste of space. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

<-When I was relatively new to WP, I created a few longish tables (example: players who participated on the USA Basketball William Jones Cup teams). I was concerned about the length, and considered collapsing the table. However, I looked into policy and saw that collapsing material in the main article (exceptions for info boxes, which should be recapitulations of material in the main article) was discouraged.

While I can imagine an exception for a long gallery of images at the end of an article where those images are related to, but not central to the topic, that exception doesn't apply here. The collapsed list of images is the very subject matter of the article. The gallery isn't all that long, so I'm not seeing any policy based rationale for the collapse.

Frankly, I wouldn't be all that averse to allowing collapsed material, but I think such a policy decision should be made affirmatively by the community. I don't recall all the objections, but the pros and cons should be weighed. I'm concerned that making a decision this way will be perceived as buckling to pressure.--SPhilbrickT 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The list of images is certainly not the subject matter of the article. The event described by the article's title is the subject matter of the article. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The event was people drawing images. To claim that the images are not central is like writing an article about the Olympics and hiding the winners, on the argument that the event is the competition, not the results.--SPhilbrickT 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they aren't important. I'm saying they are not the article topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OlYeller wrote: "I feel that it's in good taste to allow readers to choose whether or not they view the images while learning about the subject." Is that your feeling for ALL Wikipedia topics or just this particular one? If the former, why not put the hidden attribute for all Wikipedia images? That will allow readers of all topics "to choose whether or not they view the images." If, however, you don't want to do that for all Wikipedia images, then this obviously has nothing to do with "good taste." It's censorship (highly ironic given the content of the topic in question). And it's also inconsistent. The Depictions of Muhammad topic has no hide box. Removing the hide box creates consistency. --Carbonator (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Carbonator has it right here. There three good reasons that I see to get ride of the box. 1. Usability issues with the box on other platforms. 2. Censorship of good images. 3. Consistancy of the project.--Adam in MO Talk 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the collapsable box. We shouldn't offend people unnecessarily. That's not a hard point to understand. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My drawing has been cleared

Mohammed by meco.png

There are several references in the first talk page archive about one drawing which I made and uploaded to Commons which was deleted and the ensuing deletion review. After 2½ months it has been restored and can now be seen among the other 23 items in Commons:Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Whether it should be added to the gallery on this page, or replace one of the existing media files, i leave up to others. __meco (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"and the need for illustrating", your words. I don't see a need in that, since your image might be offensive (showing tongue, penis), secondly, WP:COI, thirdly I don't think the gallery here is for a collection of images rather than to help to illustrate the point. However, I leave it up to unbiased admins to decide. Userpd (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with meco's COI but I feel that you should withdraw yourself from this discussion. Every time I run into you, it's because you're pushing your POV in an Islam related article. You seem to have an agenda here that conflicts with the best interests of Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't stalk me, as I'm not stalking you and tell you that you should withdraw yourself from Israeli-related articles because you're pushing your POV and seem to have an agenda here that conflicts with the best interests of Wikipedia. Userpd (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular value in including this pic, and we have plenty. This pic is also unnecessarily offensive, so we should prefer others. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to add it. I'm treading lightly because I feel that this may be bait for someone trying to prove a point. OlYeller^Talktome 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Against DMD Facebook protests/not neutral article/gallary

I've noticed that there are about 250,000 people in a facebook campaign that are against the draw Muhammad day, 135,000 on respect Muhammed (directly linking the fact that it was done to protest DMD) and 65,000 on another similar facebook page. The article doesn't mention these which makes it unduly not neutral. Also can we cut down on the gallary pictures as most articles as long as this ones usually have about 2 rows instead of 4. NarSakSasLee (talk)

The (essentially) opposition groups would need to be noted by an independent and reliable source to be used, in my opinion. As for the gallery, I don't think that comparing it to other galleries is appropriate in this case as the subject of this article is about a day to draw those pictures. I'm not married to 4 rows though but 2 seems like too few. Honestly, I just don't care that much about how many there are. OlYeller^Talktome 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Proposal for a better name: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day Controversy Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. There's more to the subject of this article than the controversy over it. OlYeller^Talktome 13:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This event actually did turn out to be a day where lots of people around the world actually "observed", which makes this significantly different than the current "International Burn a Koran Day", at least so far. __meco (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree (not to move)--SPhilbrickT 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Meco. — Hunter Kahn 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

International Burn a Koran Day

I added a link to International Burn a Koran Day in the see also section. That was removed by an editor who in their edit summary stated that they couldn't see what that had to do with the current subject. I don't know if that person is just attempting to be politically correct or why what is obvious to me eludes them. Perhaps others can give their opinions on whether this is an appropriate link for the see also section! __meco (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I already gave my opinion and you even stated it in your reply. I don't see what the subject of this article (an day designated to draw someone) has to do with the burning of a Qu'ran. Please enlighten me with why it's so obvious to you to link this page to that page so we discuss the issue with others. OlYeller^Talktome 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From what you write I realize that there is probably no way I will be able to make that clear to you, so I'll simply wait to see if a consensus for the inclusion develops. __meco (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, if it's so easy to understand, why can't you simply write a line to explain it? I think you're dodging in an attempt to bluff my question away. I think I might know why you think they're similar but that would be assuming that you think that this event was about hating a religion which is what International Burn a Koran Day itself claims to be. I want you to tell everyone here that you assume that if you indeed do. If that's not the case, tell us why they're similar because I can see no other way that they are other than that they both involve in religion of Islam and I think you're smart enough to understand that not every Islam related article should be linked to one another by anything other than a category. I'd like to assume good faith here and assume that there's truely some reason that is escaping me at the moment which is very capable of being the case. OlYeller^Talktome 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, this article isn't about hating the religion of Islam or Muslim people. Please see the opening paragraph for a better understanding of the subject of this article. I was going to paste it here but there's probably no need. OlYeller^Talktome 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am for the link, the connection that I'm making is "similar recent incidents provoking Islam". And how are they similar? Well, both seek to provoke Islam and are legally "hiding" behind free speech. I certainly associate these two events, and that's how links seem to work to me. I mean it's not like most linking on wikipedia which is completely irrelevant and useless. It's there for a reason. Think of it this way - people coming to read this article would probably be interested in the other one too. Enough said. PoorLeno (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good reason to create a category that both belong in but not to link them in the "see also" section. Taking that argument to itself fullest would require that we list every other Islam provoking article to this one. Not taking the argument to its fullest would, in my opinion, by WP:SYNTH to the point of possibly being WP:OR. OlYeller^Talktome 18:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I must only reiterate that I think your argument is quite lacking logic-wise. Certainly those two project pages which you cite are not very relevant when it comes to links in the "See also" section. WP:SEEALSO reads "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." It also reads "Links included in the 'See also' section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." __meco (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very solid areguement Meco. The only thing that I'm still stuck on is, why not include everything that it's related to then? I worry though that if we do that, we'll have a list as long as the day and if I'm not mistaken, that's one of the main reasons that categories was created. So I guess my question really is, should we include the link here in the see also section along with everything else related or create a new category to which both the mentioned articles belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)

The only link that has been suggested is this one. I suggest we allow it and instead revisit this issue if what you fear starts to materialize. __meco (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the link for the above reasons. OlYeller, perhaps you could post some specific examples of the other links that you think would need to be added so we could discuss whether they would also be appropriate, rather than simply saying "everything else related." Propaniac (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm more with Meco here. I could go make a list to satisfy you but I think we'd all be better served waiting to see if the problem arises. My major gripe from before was addressed and the latter is more of a possible issue that may or may not arise. If it doesn't, great. If it does, we can address it. I only suggest that we make sure that adding this one event and not other isn't synthesis. OlYeller^Talktome 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in WP:SYNTH do you attain the notion that that page in any way is relevant to "See also" links? Didn't you just read my quotes about what types of links may be considered appropriate? Then you should be able to make the deduction that WP:SYNTH has no bearing on this issue. If you are unable to let this issue go, why don't you go to Wikipedia talk:No original research and make an inquiry about what people who have been active in editing that page have to say about this? __meco (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I sure did. The part that says, "whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" is where I see that synthesis could occur. We're 2-4 people talking about what we think is related. We don't need reliable sources to back up our opinion of what's related but I just suggesting that we make sure that we're not being narrow sighted about what pages we link to this one. If you didn't notice, I agree with you. I was open enough to let my opinion completely change with the introduction of sourced arguments. If anyone hasn't let it go, maybe it's you? OlYeller^Talktome 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to address your last sentence reading "I only suggest that we make sure that adding this one event and not other isn't synthesis." But I'm really unsure what you are referring to when for instance you write "The part that says, 'whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense' is where I see that synthesis could occur.* And there's more in your last post I find hard to understand. However, if you are fine with the addition of the link and you don't fell the need for further rounds or assurances on this, I can live with those opacities. __meco (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Christ, if we were to include links to everything that provoked a murderous overreaction from hypersentitive Muslims, there would be an almost infinite amount of links. It is quite clearly obvious that the attempt to link to the Koran burning incident is a political statement that merits absolutely no inclusion in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.158.8 (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, it's "a political statement"? Do you by that mean that people might find the two having common features which, God forbid, they might agree with and decide to act upon? If so, then that commonality in itself suffices as a rationale for why it would be appropriate to have the link in the "See also" section. It is certainly not Wikipedia's task to suppress relevant connections for the fear that people might perceive events not as isolated incidents of little import but instead as congruent elements of a larger trend. Surely you didn't mean political statement as in adding a link to fraudster into the article on Lloyd Blankfein? __meco (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Image gallery

I have just tagged this article's image gallery with {{imagefarm}}, because it just looks like an arbitrary selection of random images of the article subject. Can someone explain to me exactly why we have this image gallery here instead of doing a transwiki to an actual image gallery page on Commons (which is separate from a category itself, see Commons:Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary but I understand how it could be perceived as such. There was a lengthy discussion a little while back (see the archives) that resulted in this metric which determines which works should be included in the article. I'm going to remove the template from the article but I'd be happy to participate in a discussion here if you would like although I don't think time should be spent on rehashing the inclusion of the images or the metric every time someone wants to. If you have views that haven't already been discussed, let's talk about it. OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those metrics do not describe, in great detail, very specific criteria on how the images are chosen, or how the gallery is organized. As WP:Galleries states, "Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted." And you just admitted that "It's not arbitrary but I understand how it could be perceived as such" (emphasis added). Per WP:Galleries, this is what we should try to avoid IMO, or else move it to Commons:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Then let's discuss the metric in another section. Also, I understand how it could be perceived as such because the section has been archived and like you, most people don't check archives before voicing their opinions. OlYeller^Talktome 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is long enough (much, much too long) without overloading it with gratuitous images, which seem pretty clearly intended, albeit clumsily, to amplify and support the perceived original intentions of Molly Norris. Were they just tacked on there to be provocative? They aren't needed in any way by the article. And they're unfair to Norris, who's suffered enough through all this without Wikipedia planting more material for extremists to unfairly associate her with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.60.94 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article would be better off without the gallery. --JN466 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So an article shouldn't include examples of the subject of the article? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Wikipedia is not to be censored so people, including me, may be more in tuned to hear a reason that didn't involve ignoring the subject of the article or just giving a seemingly random opinion with no Wikipedia guidelines or policies cited. I wasn't surprised to see it from an anon but I am surprised to see it from an established editor. OlYeller^Talktome 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The other point of view

Since this wikipedia is zero freedom of speech, policed and always in favor of the founder's jewish/zionist beliefs, I have just changed the islamophobic first line for its exactly opposite point of view, which will be of course erased within seconds, just to put some ironic perspective on it: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a 2010 slur campaign by zionist activist Zuckenberg CEO of facebook in support of blasphemous representations of Muhammad]]. he, he, it has taken 5 SECONDS to be reverted to the pro-jewish version! he, the police at wikipedia is getting record speed and of course a new message calling me a vandal LOLS everybody in the 'real free world' knows that the 'free encyclopedia' is the most policed/censored document after Murdoch's Wall Street Journal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.211.133.177 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you have an axe to grind, however I think your hatred belongs somewhere else. For the record, I am against anti-Muslim comments, but I am also against anti-Jewish comments, and anti-Any-Other-Religion comments. Hate speech is not tolerated. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate hateful things. That is all. OlYeller^Talktome 21:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia may well be one of the most policed websites in the world. I am one of the "policemen", and I am a practicing Roman Catholic. Your point is?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Reason Magazine contest winner 2010 May 20.jpg removed ?

• File:Reason Magazine contest winner 2010 May 20.jpg

Why was this image removed from this article page ? -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, turns out it was subtle vandalism. This page has been getting a lot of vandalism for some reason lately. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DELETE THE ARTICLE 'EVERY BODY DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY'

Wikipedia is not censored. You may choose to block certain images, if you desire.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is against Islam, everybody just join hands together and delete such article and respect Islam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.161.232 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. --Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 17:10, June 15, 2011 (UTC) Closing. GManNickG (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)