Article milestones Date Process Result April 26, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2010.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. South Park C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• 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)[reply]

• Mohammed Image Archive I don't know how to edit wikipedia but here's a related source - the idea that Muslims prohibit anyone from drawing Mohammed, is suspect from the fact that they themselves have often drawn him. http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ "The Mohammed Image Archive is a compendium of images that depict Mohammed (the 7th-century founder of Islam), spanning all historical periods, cultures and genres. The inspiration for this Archive came from the global controversy over the publication of Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and the need for a comprehensive and even-handed look at the wide variety of Mohammed depictions in Islamic and Western societies from the Middle Ages until today. It will remain online as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression." Friendly Person (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A disrespectful image, a photo, is on the back cover of Amazon.com's "How Fatima Started Islam: Mohammad's Daughter Tells It All" by the American author Noor Barack. This is part of a book highly insulting to every tenet of orthodox Islam by depicting Mohammad as a urine-soaked, drunken pimp and child molester who stumbles on to Islam and is used by his intelligent daughter to start the religion. The back cover photo has Mohammad in his normal role as Mecca's town drunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlytop (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that this should be included in this article? This isn't an article about every drawn depiction of Mohammad. It's an article about Everybody Draw Mohammad day. OlYeller^Talktome 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This statement needs a reference and I expect NO reference to be found since it is false: "Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur'an.". A reference to the Hadith should be given, not some obscure PDF from some non-islamic source which simply declares that depictions are forbidden. PLEASE ADD AT LEAST A "citation needed" after the words "hadith (Islamic texts)" or change the wording to some softer form since I haven't seen ANY EXPLICIT restriction on the depiction of Muhammad. This statement is definitely challanged by the numerous depicions of Muhammad in Islamic sources presented here: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ . (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Piss Christ must replace the items "Andres Serrano – crucifix in urine controversy National Endowment for the Arts controversy" in the "See also", since the two are about the controversy for which "Piss Christ" us a direct link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.68.48 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is there a wikipedia article about a 2006 case of "Iranian newspaper to hold contest for cartoons on the Holocaust", in retaliation for caricatures of Muhammed? If yes, then IMO it may be mentioned in "See also". (showing that 'Draw Mohammed Day' was not exactly an original idea of a drawing campaign.) 71.146.68.48 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that there is such an article, but you could try searching for it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's new. Usually they suicide-bomb at us whenever they're annoyed. Good for them. HalfShadow 19:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've found it using google on wikipedia! : International Holocaust Cartoon Competition. By the way, this my search revealed other interestion hits, such as Israeli antisemitic cartoons contest. 71.146.68.48 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added the two links suggested by 71.146.68.48 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks to phrases in the lede, including, Internet, censorship, and freedom of speech, are all extremely relevant to this article, noteworthy, and appropriate wikilinks. Please do not remove them. -- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More helpful info, at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinks, and at WP:MOSLINK. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree but I'm not going to fight with you. I generally use my time to edit things that matter and not by making sure that people who are using the internet to read an article, understand what the internet is. If you think the best way to improve the project is to link words that readers who can... read will most certainly understand, then by all means. Yes, you're good at linking the MOS as well. Here's a link that actually addresses this issue and not how an internal link works. OlYeller^Talktome 18:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Current practice clearly dictates to link what is relevant. These terms are highly relevant and within the given context of the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice, eh? Did you do a study? Do you know how to do a study? What's the p-value of your findings? Do you know what a p-value is? You're not improving your argument. Your over linking and failure to understand how to make an argument speaks for itself. Keep the links. Have a great day. OlYeller^Talktome 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This last response seems a bit sarcastic and unnecessary. Hopefully in the future the tone of such discussion will be of a more constructive, polite, and positive nature. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, maybe. Sarcastic, not at all. Nothing I said was sarcastic in the slightest. We're here to discuss a point and you declare your opinion as fact with a comment like "Current practice clearly dictates..". It benefits no one when you claim that your opinions are fact but I'm guessing that's not a concept you've been educated on (as you haven't been educated on how studies are conducted). So in short, I apologize if I came of in a rude manner. In the future, you would do yourself and everyone a favor if you learn how to have an argument in an educated way instead of linking whole guidelines or claiming your opinion to be fact. As it stands now, you're just wasting a lot of people's time. OlYeller^Talktome 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. Let's both try to be more congenial in future communications. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These links are appropriate. It's when people start linking school and father in a biography or when someone died falling out of a window on the 11th floor that we need to start reigning in our editors. __meco (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook blocked in Pakistan

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

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

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

Reaction of notable Muslim Individuals

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

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

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

Hi, Cirt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding [4] - let us please keep it simple. With the short, simple sect header of Pakistan bans Facebook. This is through an official agency of the government of Pakistan. The section header is accurate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Update: [5], hopefully this is satisfactory. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

An interim order, specifically under Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973. Clearly Cirt has not knowledge of Pakistani law. S/He should back down.