Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

The other point of view

Since this wikipedia is zero freedom of speech, policed and always in favor of the founder's jewish/zionist beliefs, I have just changed the islamophobic first line for its exactly opposite point of view, which will be of course erased within seconds, just to put some ironic perspective on it

International Burn a Koran Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Against DMD Facebook protests/not neutral article/gallary

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

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

Name Change

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

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

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

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

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

Image gallery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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