Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Note, for additional sources

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. -- 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, [2], 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)

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)

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)

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: [3] -- 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.[4] 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.[5]. Here is a CNN cartoon. A Catholic Online example.

FWIW, The Zapira cartooon caused controversy which probably should be included.[6] There are several other sources covering this one. In fact the offered an apology.[7] ∴ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [8] --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: [9]
• 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)

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)

Millat Facebook

Re this reversion of an unsourced edit, there is an Agence France Presse article on the establishment of Millat Facebook here: [10]. --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)

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 [11]. 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)

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"[12]. 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[13], you were reverted 19 days later[14]. You are now supposed to discuss it instead of reverting it back yourself[15]). --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: [16])	Editorial comment by The Guardian (UK): [17], Christian Science Monitor (dead) [18],
[19]	Mark Fiore	Inky al-Jihadi (video)	2010-05-19		Described in [20]
[21]	Anonymous students on "campuses"		2010-05-21	CNN	Includes some Muslim students' alterations
[22]	Unattributed		2010-05-20	Catholic Online	Might not be copyrightable
[23]	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.[24] 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 ([25]) - 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)

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)

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.