Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Archive 3

Second annual

Does anyone know if there will be a second annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?Racingstripes (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are two Facebook sites devoted to the second annual event:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/2nd-Annual-Draw-Muhammad-Day-May-20th-2011/119371148108513

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day-2nd-annual/103432269737853 --Carbonator (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least three Facebook pages on the second annual event. Here's a third one:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day-2011/129478927070760

Not to mention an ever-increasing number of youtube videos on the second annual event:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22everybody+draw+mohammed+day%22+2011&aq=f --Carbonator (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What's hilarious is that the "annual" edit has become a permanent fixture in hundreds of websites. Just do a search on "everybody draw mohammed day is an annual event." You'll get about 1,000 hits, and almost all are quoting Wikipedia!! :-) My favorite is a video by Thunderf00t. Go to 3:19 of "Burning Half a Million Korans." It's a screenshot of Wikipedia showing the annual verbiage. Love it! :-)--Carbonator (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the pages has 371 members and the other 88.I dont think these will have much significance compared to that of the original one.But,until the 2nd annual event actually takes place,it is unfair to call Everybody Draw Mohammed day an annual event.Sam 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdacruel (talk • contribs)

Member count is irrelevant. If there are reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. not a Facebook group) to back up the claim, then I would consider it annual. Until then, the references only point to one event being notable and not an annual event. OlYeller^Talktome 23:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How will the Wikipedia powers-that-be objectively determine whether a second event occurs on May 20, 2011? Olyeller appears to make an attempt above, but it's vague and confusing. Independent of WHAT subject? Back up WHAT claim? Are you saying that the "subject" (event) is the Facebook page? If so, then if there's a Facebook page for the second annual event, then that event exists! If the "subject" is not the Facebook page, then . . . what are you saying?

Perhaps it would help if Wikipedia explained how it determined that the FIRST event occurred. If the Facebook page in 2010 was NOT evidence that the first event occurred, what WAS the evidence used to call it an "event"? There were many youtube videos dedicated to the event. There were contests (at least one of which is mentioned in this very article) for the event last year. Are those evidence that people were engaged in the event?

In summary, Wikipedia moderators should provide objective criteria before May 20. Otherwise, if the criteria are vague (or non-existent) and moderators refuse to change the text to indicate "annual," then many will think the moderators are biased and simply doing everything they can to prevent this from being recognized as an annual event. So I look forward to clearly explained objective criteria. A few examples of acceptable evidence would also be ideal.--Carbonator (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The original event received a lot of news coverage from WP:Reliable sources, which is what this article is about (the event and the reaction). If there aren't any reliable sources regarding a second event, then mention of a second or annual event doesn't belong here. The existence of a Facebook page does not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt at providing clear criteria. You wrote, "If there aren't any reliable sources regarding a second event, then mention of a second or annual event doesn't belong here." So, if, as you say, zero reliable sources = not an annual event, then are you saying that at least one reliable source = annual event?--Carbonator (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The event would have to receive enough coverage to meet WP:GNG guidelines, which usually involves more than one source with non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An unfortunate number of weasel words ("usually" -- "non-trivial"), but I understand if that's the best Wikipedia can do. Regardless, "two sources" satisfies your "more than one source" criterion. So it appears that Wikipedia will change the text to indicate an annual event if contributors provide at least two reliable sources with "non-trivial coverage." Thanks. --Carbonator (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious that you're not familiar with what a weasel word is so you may want to check out this definition. Also, Ohnoitsjamie is mistaken. The two sources rule has to do with the subject of an article being notable and not information about an already notable subject. It's part of an inclusion guideline for articles and not content in articles. Paragraph 3 of WP:N states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." For the page to change and indicate that the event is annual, there will need to be a consensushere on the talk page. In the future, if something an established editor say is unclear to you, perhaps you should assume that it's your lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines and not that another editor is trying to pull a fast one on you. Since you asked a few questions, I'll go ahead and answer them.

• "Independent of WHAT subject?" - Since you seem confused with the meaning of the word independent, here is a link to an essay that explains the concept.
• "Back up WHAT claim?" - .....See the title of the section you're talking in. The claim is that the event is an annual event.
• "Are you saying that the "subject" (event) is the Facebook page?" - No, the subject is the event, not the Facebook page. The concept of the event existed before the FB event page.
• "If the "subject" is not the Facebook page, then . . . what are you saying?" - That the independent and reliable sources are all covering a single event that happened last year.
• "are you saying that at least one reliable source = annual event?" - No. See paragraph 3 of WP:N. A consensus would need to be reached here on the talk page that thereliable and independent sources point to the subject of this article being an annual event.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them here so that we can discuss the issue. OlYeller^Talktome 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify; If a second annual such day was widely publicized, talk page consensus would not be required to include it. My reference to WP:GNG was simply a suggestion of how to gauge the coverage. That said, I don't think it's going to be widely publicized. As far as changing the description to "annual," that would be another story, and would require consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the most recent edit by Carbonator as it refactored my comments. Anyone, including Carbonator are welcome to reapply the comments below (anywhere but inside of my comments or the comments of others). Carbonator, I suggest being more WP:civil in your response (calling me a dick isn't going to help anything). My suggestion that you seemed to be unaware of certain policies and guidelines wasn't meant to be "snotty" but if someone has been around WP for a while, they know that newcomers often misunderstand certain words used by editors who have been around for a while. For instance, "notable" and "reliable" are often misunderstood by new editors and rightfully so as the WP definition is much more defined than the average person might think. Futhermore, WP's definition of a word or concept such as weasel words may be different than any dictionary you might find such as American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms. This just means that their definition is essentially useless here when WP editors have found a reason to create their own definition for a word or concept. If you have any questions you'd like to ask here, feel free. There are plenty of people watching this page, including me, that are willing to answer your questions. All I ask is that we do it civily. If you call people out, be ready for them to call you out in return but that still doesn't mean we need to degrade to slinging derogatory words around. Hope your day was as nice it was here. OlYeller^Talktome 00:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Olyeller wrote: “Since you seem confused with the meaning of the word independent.” Wow, it’s clear why you won the “civility award”!! (giggle) As anyone with reading abilities can see, I wasn’t confused by the word independent. I was unclear what subject you were talking about. That’s why I asked, “WHAT subject.” Perhaps in the future you should take more time reading instead of being a dick. I suggest you try to be a bit more WP:civil and reduce your snotty comments.--Carbonator (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'll be here if you have any questions or want to continue the discussion regarding the subject of this article being an annual event or not. OlYeller^Talktome

You claimed that in order for this event to be properly considered annual, verifiable sources like media coverage must be required. This is is illogical and does not have anything to do with whether or not the event is annual. Media coverage simply implies media coverage. Just because something is not covered by the media, does it mean that it does not exist? Because the media doesn't cover the fact that I read romance novels late at night, does it mean that I do not read romance novels? There is a "Draw Muhammad Day 2011" event on Facebook with nearly 3,000 confirmed supporters or "attendee" headed by Thunderf00t, perhaps the Internet's most renowned atheist. I don't see your logic at all. MrBosnia (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to simply be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's "notable" and your definition of "notable". To use your example, note that there are no articles about how someone reads romance novels late at night unless its a notable occurrence and that's well defined in WP:N. Furthermore, "Draw Muhammad Day 2011" is not that same as "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" and regardless, the number of supporters it has doesn't imply anything about its notability. It may suggest its notable but that's to be decided by consensus of informed users. Lastly, "Draw Muhammad Day 2011"doesn't even exist on FB and as can easily be seen fromthis search, there's less than 400 supporters total for any such groups. Your argument that there's a second event simply isn't true let alone notable. OlYeller^Talktome 13:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of people who have reverted edits that indicate that this event is annual, besides myself: Cntras (talk · contribs), Johnuniq (talk · contribs), Samdacruel (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), and The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk · contribs). Also, I've requested the page be semi-protected until after May 1st. OlYeller^Talktome 14:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that you can read the first sentence of that notability article, the guideline is set up for the necessity of starting a brand NEW article on a subject independent from everything else. This is not what editors like myself are trying to do - we are merely trying to change one sentence in the entire article for factual corectness and leave the rest of it dealing with the original Draw Muhammad Day because how much more distinguished it was.

The Draw Muhammad Day event on Facebook requires a Facebook account to be seen. So yes, it exists and here it is with the full attendee list everything else: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=197904546896886 MrBosnia (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing, then, that you haven't read much of the discussion above. I addressed that issue already. Feel free to go read. Regardless of an event existing on FB, that still doesn't mean it's an annual event which, again, has already been discussed. Do you have any new arguments that might change people's minds? OlYeller^Talktome 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Except you didn't state anywhere why Facebook event pages don't constitute as reliable sources when they are actually THE source of what the article has been founded on, which would seem to make it the ultimate perfect source. I again refer to you the romance novels analogy I made above and how media coverage only implies to what the media will believe will entertain the masses. Western media often focuses more on the inanities of celebrities than the intellectual and social events that are shaping the world simply because of entertainment factor, so your notability argument regarding that is fairly void. Real-world example: it took more than a week after Pastor Terry Jones ultimately decided to burn the Quran last month for mainstream media to cover it, most likely because the masses have already been bored to death on the event in the previous year. In fact, the burning of the Quran would not have even been covered if the subsequent violence did not follow, and yet imagine that the previous entire media frenzy in 2010 over the subject WAS whether Terry Jones would actually burn or not burn the book. Wikipedia covers encyclopedic content and solely encyclopedia content, and to say that the notability of articles and content in articles must rest exclusively on media coverage is a horribly intellectually deprived idea within the encyclopedic writing discipline. MrBosnia (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's towards the top of the discussion where I say that member count is irrelevant. Furthermore, please read WP:primary to learn about primary sources. I skipped the part where you get into your opinion on how media works because it's essentially irrelevant. Your opinion on the inclusion guidelines of Wikipedia make sense but this isn't the place to argue them. If you'd like to change policies and/or guidelines, the talk page of WP:N would be the best place to start.

Several other well established editors and I have made our opinion clear; that it's not an annual event as of now and we've backed it up with WP policies and guidelines. As of now, you're the only editor who feel otherwise and it doesn't seem that you're changing any opinions. While this isn't a vote or a poll, I don't see how continuing to converse with you is going to be constructive so unless other editors join the conversation, I'm checking out. Any edits to the article that suggest that this is an annual event before consensus changes will be reverted and probably not by me. However, if I do end up reverting them, I'll be marking them as vandalism and issuing warnings appropriately. OlYeller^Talktome 14:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To all editors: this is exactly one of the main flaws that govern Wikipedia: when robot logic people with administratorial power like OlYeller21 evade the essential debate at hand and link to irrelevant policy guidelines that make no sense regarding what he or she are talking about. They purposely place their fingers in their ears out of the fear of being wrong simply to defend their wounded egos. Nonetheless, while it is sad readers of this article will be left out of crucial information, it does not change the fact that this has turned into an annual event simply because one uncooperative person refuses to acknowledge it and defend their rationale for why it isn't. The drawings and debate will continue and outside of Wikipedia I'll do my best to inform people that the Draw Muhammad Day activism has continued into 2011. MrBosnia (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX. OlYeller^Talktome 15:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller wrote: "Your argument that there's a second event simply isn't true." That's for a consensus to determine, not for you to determine unilaterally. Also, in a revision comment, Olyeller wrote: "No indication that this is an annual event." This is blatantly false. The Norris poster that started this entire event clearly states it's annual. In adddition, there are at least three Facebook pages dedicated to the second ANNUAL event. Those are INDICATIONS. Multiple indications. Therefore, stating that there are ZERO indications is false. If you continue to make such false claims, I will be forced to report you.--Carbonator (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, it's amusing how Olyeller claimed that he was "checking out" (i.e., refusing to respond to MrBosnia again). And yet, lo and behold, he responded yet again. :-) MrBosnia, you are absolutely correct. Keep up the good work.--Carbonator (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• "That's for a consensus to determine, not for you to determine unilaterally." - Correct. I posted a list of established editors whom agree with me.
• "I will be forced to report you" - Report away.
• "Btw, it's amusing how Olyeller blah" - So astute.

Flame away but as I've mentioned before, this isn't taking the conversation anywhere. OlYeller^Talktome 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Through some more researching on Facebook, I've found now that there are countless pages with tens of thousands of followers that are either for or against the 2011 Draw Muhammad Day event, and with several weeks still to go, this will only multiply. Anyhoo this amount of primary sources is overwhelming for a second annual and frankly to deny it is like evolution-denying in terms of the blind eye to the evidence. OlYeller21 doesn't seem to be an admin so I'm going to go ahead and continue with the editing whether the ignorance continues or not. This is pretty much a non-issue now. MrBosnia (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller petulantly wrote: "this isn't taking the conversation anywhere." That's another false statement. This conversation has corrected your false statement that there were zero indications that it was an annual event and your false statement that "Your argument that there's a second event simply isn't true." I know you don't like to be corrected. Hey, maybe you should do another immature and emotion-based attempt to ban me, like you did a few days ago, only to realize later (after you had calmed down) that you had no basis for doing so. Executive Summary: Grow up, dick.--Carbonator (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you'd call my actions emotion filled in the same response as calling me a dick. I withdrew my nomination to have a short block placed on you for committing vandalism after a level 4 block because I thought I would assume good faith and hope that your calling me a "think skinned little prick"and to telling me to "fuck off" would die down. I didn't think that having an admin block you for 31 hours would help calm you down but letting some time pass might help. Obviously, it hasn't. If you disagree with me, you're certainly entitled to that opinion but I feel that I have stated my opinion and backed it up with references to current policies and guidelines while all you have done is call me names and threaten to report me (for what, I'm still not sure). Regardless, I've invited editors who have previously contribute to the article to come back and give their opinion so that we could get this cleared up without anymore mudslinging or name calling. Here's a list of who I messaged in case anyone cares: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. OlYeller^Talktome 00:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller wrote: "while all you have done is call me names." As is clear to anyone who can read all the above, you're lying. I've done MORE than justifiably calling you a dick. I've pointed out where you made falsehoods. I've also answered a person's question about evidence for the second annual event (providing three FB URLs). Please stop lying, dick.--Carbonator (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller21 we are more then open to rational but relevant discussion here that actually involves someone founding their arguments on reason and evidence and not linking to either A) irrelevant Wiki policy guidelines or B), policy guidelines that only support our position (the one dealing with primary sources). Obviously the best approach is the scientific one here, as the positive in logic and science is always followed first since the burden of proof lays on the one trying to prove the negative. In this case we have an overwhelming amount of primary evidence that a 2011 Draw Muhammad Day does in fact exist, and so if you're willing to convince us how it does not or how the evidence is not applicable, THEN your negative will replace the current positive. And yes, we should all really refrain from derogatory insults. I am loosely assuming good faith in you and Carbonator should keep things constructive and polite no matter what. MrBosnia (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fair, MrBosnia. I'm feeling like you and I can may disagree but can at least have a discussion. I think the issue is that I feel those linked policies and guidelines are pertinent and you do not. That's an opinion that we disagree on. Furthermore, I don't think that we're going to change our minds, at least as of right now. I'm certainly open to changing my opinion as I have done at least twice on hotly debated issues on this page alone. I'm not going to revert the page as it stands right now but we do need to get some sort of reference in that shows that the event is annual (where I placed a {{fact}}tag at the beginning of the article). At that point, a discussion between you, me, and whoever else wants to be involved may participate in.

I think you an I are at ends of the spectrum as to what proves that the event is annual. If I'm understanding correctly and please correct me if I'm not, it seems that you feel that there being FB groups alone for this year inherently proves that it's an annual event. On the other end of the spectrum, I feel that a 2+ news articles from reliable and independent sources would satisfy not only me but anyone who questions whether or not this is an annual event. When I think about this situation compared to others, I think of a scenario where an event like Bonaroo is never again planned by its creators. Is it still in existence if 30 people make a FB group declaring that they're having Bonaroo? Does it take 1k people? Does it take 10k? It's hard to say and subject to the opinion of every single reader. For an article like this, I prefer the answer to be definite for any reader and from an article inclusion guideline, that means having independent coverage from reliable sources. Of course, this is meant for subjects and not the content in an article but for an article as highly visible as this one, I feel that being safe is the best plan of action. In my opinion, if I'm understanding your argument, that's where we disagree and as I said before, I don't know that we'll change our minds on that, easily.

Of course this would be giving in to me which you have no obligation to do but finding 2+ news articles from reliable and independent sources would shut me up. If you do that, I'll make the text say annual myself. "Reliable" can be debated but I'm not looking to prolong the situation. I hope all that made sense. OlYeller^Talktome 00:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say that yes, since you've finally now taken the liberty to fully explain your viewpoint, I do see that there are some issues in establishing the notability of calling it annual because of the absence of consensus on what specific amount of supporters/opposers constitutes notability. However, the Wiki guideline on notability is only regarding full independent articles. In this case, 99.99% of the article will be about the main distinguished 2010 Draw Muhammad Day and no more than one sentence will call it annual. Therefore I really do not see the inclusion of this statement as something that should be as troubling as everyone is making it out to be here. MrBosnia (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again. This article is about the event as it was covered the first time. Anyone can start a Facebook group to prove that it continues annually, but how different would that be from staging a Facebook "Million Man March" every year? Unless there are reliable sources to support that this is an annual event (existence of a Facebook event/group != reliable sources), "annual" should be removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie If I understand the text within the parentheses, you are claiming that the existence of Facebook events/groups constitutes as reliable sources. In that case see above. There are many active ones now growing in the range of tens of thousands. Granted it's not anywhere near the figures of hundreds of thousands of last year, but the presence is still quite there. Thunderf00t, perhaps the Internet's most renowned atheist, is leading this year's. MrBosnia (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. The != symbol means "not equal." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary

The issue concerns whether the lead (which was "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was an event held on May 20th, 2010") should be changed to read "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is an annual event held on May 20th".

When I reverted that change (diff), I mentioned in my edit summary that an annual event cannot have occurred just once—it has to actually occur annually for the new wording to apply. It might be argued that the event is planned to be an annual event, however a couple of Facebook pages are not suitable to justify such a statement at Wikipedia. PerWP:CRYSTAL, an article should only talk about future events when described "by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field".

If the topic of this article concerned plans or actions taken at a Facebook page, it is extremely likely that the article would be deleted as failing notability. The reason the article is kept is that the topic is about actions taken by a named cartoonist and some South Park episodes—something notable that actually happened and which was discussed in reliable secondary sources. The material on Facebook activism is appropriate in this article because it illustrates reactions to the core event. However, an article should not be used to advocate or promote an event. When areliable secondary source declares that the day is an annual event, so should the article. I have not studied all the recent discussion, but I think there is no such source, in which case the event is not annual as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq that was nothing but full of illogical reasoning coupled with guideline pages that do not connect with your arguments. The five main crystal ball Wiki guidelines have nothing to do with what you said. The 2011 event is almost certain to take place and I don't see how any sort of "expert" is relevant here. See above regarding the primary sources which prove the 2011 event. MrBosnia (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are more than two disputants here, so the WP:3O listing was in error, but I'll drop in anyway (after all, WP:BURO). Some participants in this discussion have attempted to use notability guidelines; that's a red herring since notability does not limit content. What matters here is WP:V and WP:RS; apparently the only sources for the 'annual' claim are Facebook pages on which this year's event is being planned, and so the relevant guidelines are those on self-published sources as sources about themselves. Is the material unduly self-serving - is this a small event claiming to be a continuation of the previous, large event? Does it involve claims about 3rd parties/events not directly related to the source - is this year's event being run by someone other than the originators of last year's event without the endorsement of the latter, while claiming otherwise? The other two guidelines (authenticity and primary basis) seem to be satisfied. PT(talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The above sums up my questions better than I did and adds questions that I feel need to be answered. I feel that "is this year's event being run by someone other than the originators of last year's event without the endorsement of the latter" is going to be very hard to answer. The event was created by Molly Norris, then she claimed that it was satire essentially canceling the event, then the event was started back up by one or two people on FB who I believe are named in some of the references that discuss the event being removed from FB then re-added. If we find those names and find that they again started the event, I feel that the event could easily be considered annual. If they are not involved, the answer to the question above would be clear. Although, given the handed-off creation of the event, some may consider this question irrelevant. OlYeller^Talktome 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Olyeller wrote: "finding 2+ news articles from reliable and independent sources would shut me up. If you do that, I'll make the text say annual myself." There are at least two reliable and independent sources that mention the second annual Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. One is The News International at http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=45034&Cat=5&dt=5/4/2011. The second is the Daily Times athttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C04%5Cstory_4-5-2011_pg13_6. Therefore, the criterion has been met to call this an annual event. --Carbonator (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read any of this message but I reverted your edit as vandalism as you have still failed to cite a reference in the article. No one cares what reference you may or may not have if it's not cited in the article. OlYeller^Talktome 01:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So Carbonater provided the references above but forgot to include them in the actual article, and that's vandalism?? The Vandalism article says vandalism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and it provides examples such as "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." Carbonator's edit was nothing of the kind. It was obviously a good-faith edit. The Vandalism article also says: "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." I see that you've had some unpleasant words above with this individual. Please don't let that color your editing. This was clearly not vandalism.--SallySE (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Carb was reverted because he's been warned about adding information contrary to the consensus of this discussion. He was blocked due to his incivility. As a new editor who obviously isn't a new user created by Carbonator, what brought you here? OlYeller^Talktome 03:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You first said Carbonater's edit was reverted because he "failed to cite a reference in the article." Forgetting to add a reference isn't vandalism. And falsely accusing someone of vandalism is, quote, "harmful." Regardless, your new reason for reverting his edit (i.e., it was "contrary to the consensus") doesn't seem to be valid since Carbonator quoted YOU yourself as saying "finding 2+ news articles from reliable and independent sources would shut me up. If you do that, I'll make the text say annual myself." Two sources were provided. So, if you had kept your word, you would have already made the text say annual yourself. Why haven't you?--SallySE (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As you're very new, I'm not surprised that you're not very familiar with the situation. It's considered vandalism because Carbonator has been told that the edit he has made has been reverted several times by several editors because he has failed to provide sufficient references. Furthermore, he was warned that doing so again would be reverted as vandalism. As for my actions being harmful, Carbonator hasn't exactly setup a venue for civil communication which is why he blocked for 24 hours and then blocked again for 48 hours for continuing his incivility. As for the references, one article doesn't even exist and the other doesn't particularly seem like a reliable sources when the author is "Our Correspondent". Even if it is reliable and it very well may be, I don't personally find that this coverage considerable in proving that the event is annual but that's up to more editors than just me and you (or Carbonator).

Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are Carbonator. If not, I apologize for associating you with someone who has had problems with civility to the degree that he has been blocked. A yes or no answer will suffice. OlYeller^Talktome04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "one article doesn't even exist"?--Carbonator (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Olyeller's silence is deafening. :-) If we don't here from him soon, we'll have to conclude that he lied or had Internet problems preventing him from seeing both articles. (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the latter.) Either way, that puts us right back where we were: Two sources have been provided. As Sally pointed out, Olyeller promised to add "annual" to the article if two sources were provided. So, we're all looking forward to Olyeller keeping his promise.--Carbonator (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Missed the last diff in my watchlist. When I clicked the links for both articles, one came up with some sort of address not found error which has since been corrected. Still, my other concerns remain (I'm not sure how reliable a newspaper is that doesn't even name their writers). I'd like to hear what others have to say. Also, Sally doesn't have much pull here as she disappeared when asked why her only edits were made during your block and regarding your interests. I can initiate a WP:SPI if you feel the need to combat that idea. Again, I'd like to hear what others have to say about your references before I support any changes. Before you jump into offensively defensive mode again, realize that you're changing my mind but it's not changed yet. Also, my opinion isn't the only one that matters which is why I'd like to hear what others have to say although they may be steering clear of this conversation to avoid having obscenities thrown at them by you. OlYeller^Talktome 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for retracting your incorrect claim that one of the two sources doesn't exist. It's always ideal to provide valid information on Wikipedia. I wonder if your emotions caused you to be overly hasty (and careless) in your attempts to come up with some excuse to disparage ANY source provided (as some of us expected you might do). So, just to summarize, I provided two newspaper sources above, both of which really do exist.--Carbonator (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There are now a whopping SIX independent and reliable sources. Here they all are (including the two previously mentioned):

• http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=45034&Cat=5&dt=5/4/2011
• http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C04%5Cstory_4-5-2011_pg13_6
• http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C06%5Cstory_6-5-2011_pg13_2
• http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=45320&Cat=5&dt=5/6/2011
• http://tribune.com.pk/story/162801/permanently-banning-facebook-court-seeks-record-of-previous-petitions/
• http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C07%5Cstory_7-5-2011_pg3_1 --Carbonator (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look past the possibility of your response being uncivil and get to the heart of the matter. Are their any references that aren't from Pakistan? Having a few from non-.pk sources should keep anyone from claiming that these references are WP:Synthesis. I'll ask one more time that you not continue to be uncivil. I doubt you'll react well to that request but please be aware that my opinion is backed up by the fact that you've been blocked twice for incivility. OlYeller^Talktome 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Il have to agree with Olyeller here.Can u give us some other reliable source??These references sort of seem identical.Anyway,whay are you so obsessed with this one matter?Not just here but on other pages as well...Sam 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now sources have to come from more than one country. :-) I hadn't noticed that requirement before. Is that true of all Wikipedia articles? For example, if there are 10 sources all from the United States (New York Times, Washington Post, San Francicso Chronicle, etc, etc) for a particular point in a given article, Wikipedia editors would insist on a source outside the United States? If so, that's good to know.--Carbonator (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sam, one person's obsession is another person's interest. I wouldn't waste your precious time worrying about what other people do or don't find interesting.--Carbonator (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the country in specific.The reason is that some obscure newspaper in Pakistan is not exactly a reliable source when it comes to this topic.Also,the only thing the "sources" talk about are the planned banning of facebook incase of a 2nd annual Everybody Draw Muhammad day.Unless reliable sources christen it as annual,we here should notSam 23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I provided items from THREE different newspapers, you incorrectly used the singular "some obscure newspaper" when you meant to use the plural. Regardless, tell us, Sam: How do you know all three of those newspapers are obscure? And please give me the names of NON-obscure newspapers in Pakistan. If you're unable to do so, that would indicate that you really aren't in a position to tell us what is and isn't a reliable source from Pakistan. In which case your opinion about the reliability of said sources will be ignored. So far I haven't heard any convincing arguments why the SIX references aren't sufficient. (Especially since Olyeller promised to add the word "annual" if he got just two.)--Carbonator (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't have any others? Three people think your references may be WP:Synthesis outside of their questionable reliability. If you can only attack others and continue failing to answer people's questions, why should anyone continue to listen to you on top of being called a little thin-skinned prick and being told to fuck off? Also, I'd like to ask you bluntly if you were evading your block committingsock puppety with the user SallySE (talk · contribs). I think the suggestion that you may have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia regarding this subject is valid. OlYeller^Talktome 03:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly,I doubt whether any source from Pakistan is even relevant to the subject at hand.And like I said previously,your so called sources do not actually claim that the event is annual.It is merely about legal action or blocking of facebook due to a page called "2nd annual Everybody Draw Muhhamad day".You still have failed to answer that.And please refrain from calling people names.It does not advance your cause.The only thing it does is get you blocked. Sam 04:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's odd that you would question the reliability of the sources I provided above and would refer to them as "obscure," considering that two of the three are used as references in this very EDMD article. See references 105 (Express Tribune) and 106 (Daily Times). In fact, both newspapers have their own Wikipedia articles. If they are indeed non-reliable, then you've got some editing to do in the main article! :-) Btw, thanks for the tip on name-calling, but as you can see, Olyeller takes every opportunity to remind everyone that I called him a thin-skinned prick. He's done it several times. Almost an OBSESSION, you might say. :-) I hope he gets rid of that unpleasant and grudge-like chip on his shoulder. It's really quite uncivil. Until then, the evidence would indicate that the name is quite well deserved.--Carbonator (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that shows that a source having an article on WP makes the source notable. As for the tip, I'll give it every time I feel your interests are questioned as its obviously a relevant example of your demeanor. It's something you've done, been blocked for, and will not have to live with for the rest of your time on WP. As for being obsessed with you or anything you do, you're just not that important as can be seen by the over 8k edits I've made on pages other than this one. Feel free to continue the name calling and question dodging. You're not helping your cause. Also, you never answered my question about block evading. Were you evading your block by committing sock puppety with the user SallySE (talk · contribs).OlYeller^Talktome 07:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously,stop dodging questions and answer the questions.The sources you mentioned again refer to Pakistan banning facebook.I said "relevant" and not reliable.Your sources are not relevant to the subject at hand(the annual thing).Also,stop avoiding questions and answer them.I don't blame OldYeller.Its hard to assume good faith when you act like this. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Samdacruel (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean about Olyeller's grudge? Wow! I can just picture him frantically refreshing the page every 3 seconds, obsessively looking for another opportunity to tell everyone about my demeanor (and tell us what a big 8k editor he is!!!). Kinda sad. Hint: If you don't like being called a thin-skinned prick, then don't act like one, n'kay?--Carbonator (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sam wrote: "I said "relevant" and not reliable." You didn't say "reliable"? Really? Well, let's see: On May 10, you wrote, "some obscure newspaper in Pakistan is not exactly a RELIABLE source when it comes to this topic." (my emphasis). So please stop evading the question: If those two sources are unreliable, are you going to be consistent and remove them from the main article (again, refs 105 and 106). If not, why not? --Carbonator (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Carb, I'll assume that your question personal attacks and failure to address my questions as an admittance that you are unable to answer them. OlYeller^Talktome 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok,this is getting ridiculous.Carbonator,if you have any notable sources that directly imply that EDMD is annual,please bring it forward.Your sources only refer to the planned banning of fb in the future.Whn you do that,I will personally change it to annual.And for the last time stop acting like a child. Sam 05:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

PS Olyeller,check this outWikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars Sam 05:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary got cut off. Here's the full summary: " Carb, this wasn't concensus. Stop edit warring, present the references on the talk page, and everyone will talk about them. This isn't going to be a change you can make because you assume you've satisfied everyone." OlYeller^Talktome 18:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate, I didn't realize a WP:Consensus was reached (it wasn't). What additional references have you found? do they indicate that this is more than something that only two newspapers find important enough to write about? Is it something to indicate that the FB event was in collaboration with the previous event that was notable and not just something started by random people. I tried to verify who started the new one but it looks like FB is shutting most of them down. The largest collection I can find is of ~6k people for a Page. When I asked for two references, I was thinking something more along the lines of the BBC, NYT, NBC, etc. I'm going to look for more substantial articles right now. I'm guessing if there's a day they would be easy to find, it would be today. OlYeller^Talktome 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

as easy as I originally thought. Carb, what were those refs you posted? I'll try and find more while you paste those over here. OlYeller^Talktome 18:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding anything substantial or really anything other than some blog posts. I guess my problem with the Pakistan articles about legislation to ban FB in PK is that it's all about an event that is hard to prove even exists. They're assuming the event exists but it looks like it barely does (it doesn't exist in its previous form of hundreds of thousands of followers). The PK articles would be great for proving that they're is legislation to block FB (and in turn, I support noting this years ban in this article), but I don't see how it proves that this is an annual event. This situation is obviously odd because the legislation is over the perception of an annual event and what doesn't actually appear to be an annual event. I can see arguments either way but personally think it's not annual. At least not yet.OlYeller^Talktome 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

On the same day this article was nominated for deletion, Masshole, an article about derogatory words used for people from Massachussets, was nominated, and so far is overwhelmingly voted for deletion. I might have mentioned WP:N had no one else done so, and the AfD not been closed 3 minutes after being nominated. I find the early closing and the double standard considerably more offensive than the article or the AfD result. Anarchangel (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article you mention seems an appropriate AfD nomination. The nomination of the present article on the same day was obviously made without knowledge of long-standing consensus and with a rationale that is completely inappropriate, and it was therefore closed as a Speedy keep. I see no double standard in these different actions, only one nominator who was unfamiliar with how Wikipedia functions. __meco (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Meco is right, in my opinion. Also, you do see that the delete !votes at Masshole have nothing to do with notability or with it being offensive, right? It's been mentioned before but in case you aren't familiar, Wikipedia is not censored. The recent AfD for this article gave no other reason than it is offensive for deletion and as Meco mentioned, everything else that anyone could come up with (mostly notability) has been covered in previous AfDs. Unless someone has some new reason that no one has been able to think of to delete this article, I assume that any AfD discussion will be speedily closed as well. As for an AfD discussion closure being offensive or an article being offensive, I think you may be letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment here and from what I've seen, that never works out well on Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gallery removed

I just removed the gallery from the bottom of this article, in accordance with the principles described at WP:IG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The gallery was a collection of 15 drawings with no identifiable concrete purpose in the article. Many of the captions were of the form "Drawing, by a man in Tennessee"—no commentary or analysis at all. The captions that did have some kind of analysis merely pointed out that the image was making a reference to some other pop culture phenomenon, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If these images are meaningful and can illustrate specific points of the text, then they should be restored to the article, but interspersed with the text and with illuminating captions. Otherwise it's just a section that says, "Look what some people drew!" —Bkell (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I undid the removal. Check the archives for discussions on this matter. OlYeller^Talktome 06:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are these archives? —Bkell (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the tiny links to the archives now, buried in the middle of the brown boxes at the top of this page. I looked for those links for a long time earlier and couldn't find them. —Bkell(talk) 06:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, after reading through a few of the posts in the archives it looks like the inclusion or exclusion of the gallery in this article has been argued about quite thoroughly. I probably don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said (and anyway, I said it above). Surely this is a frequently raised issue with this article, though—it would be good to have a permanent and prominent link to the relevant past discussions somewhere on this talk page, so that people like me can find them and read through them to see what's been said before. At least a link to Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day/Requirements for gallery of depictions of Mohammed. Is there a recommended way to make non-archivable FAQ sections for talk pages? —Bkell (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a FAQ box at the top. —Bkell (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Human123321, 13 May 2011

This is not the freedom of expressions...Its all about to play with the emotions of millions of people...every religion teaches us to respect each other, what kind of freedom of expression is this??? If any body abuse your mum dad or loved one will you keep looking silently???will you not mind?? If you don't mind then you are not in human because that's the only difference which makes humans superior than other creatures...but the people doing these propagandas are not normal humans... infect they are far away from humanity...please don't play anymore with the feelings and emotions of people.

Human123321 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SOAPBOX CTJF83 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Annual event?

Here's some refs that the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is an anuual event: [7], [8], [9],[10], [11],[12], [13] etc. Should the lead be changed to include the word "annual" ? Pass a Method talk 10:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that you Carb?If you're not,look a few sections above.Sam 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see that. No i'm not carb. Btw, do u think the 20 May article should include a line about this event? An admin deleted it today Pass a Method talk 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that,Il support it.EDMD was a relatively significant occurance Sam 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed my support of mentioning the newest PK block in an above section but I don't see that it proves that the event is annual. OlYeller^Talktome 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed not anual at least till it will be held again and the Pakistan site block is less than notable since it didn't occur yet (no ruling there as of today).TMCk(talk) 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is going to be an annual event like christmas or arbor day, but there was an event that occurred on the anniversary of the first event. It didn't have the momentenum of last year, or the press coverage but there is ample evidence and websites devoted to a 2011 Everybody draw mohammad day. At least one website is calling it International Draw Mohammad Day. It should be mentioned in the article.Racingstripes (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's annual but not on a fixed date. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day-3-may-20-2012/122155544532988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GvH (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Poster and gallery

So what's the consensus? Do we show the silly cartoon poster? Do we show the gallery of (calculatedly offensive) images?

A compromise might be to create a gallery page for the Muhammad pictures, with a link from the article. That way, a Muslim reader could learn about the controversy without outraging his sensibilities.

Anyway, it's not worth an edit war or even a WP:ANI. Can I just get some feedback here? ----Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 16:35, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

While it makes sense to show all the drawings at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy given their notability, I don't see what's notable about any of the images in the gallery. Personally, I think it would be sufficient to just display the poster that's already in the lead. I don't see why a gallery of examples is useful. --Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 16:55, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

The gallery is useful in showing the tone of the typical cartoon -- that they are just silly and not overtly offensive. -- 110.49.251.173 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not say "Prophet" anywhere, does it ?

Mohammad can be any persons name. If you see Pakistan's jails, you will find many criminals with that name. So, one can say that these drawing-movements can refer to any one, say Mohammad Ali, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.82.179 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your point being? --Sam 15:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)