Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Sources that its still observed?

Do Facebook and Tumblr qualify as valid sources to show that its still being observed? I see posts about it there. Asarelah (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Asarelah: No, that's original research. We need a good quality secondary source saying it's still observed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Likely not observed anymore, but seems to have spawned related events near the same date, like the Draw Muhammad contest that happened earlier this month and made national news when two terrorists were killed there. Whether the existence of that event was influenced by Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, I'm not sure if there's a connection, and in any case a source would be required. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that Draw Mohammed Day is an annual thing, particularly in the online atheist community. That's not the sort of thing you'd go to a newspaper or sociology text to learn about. You just find it the same way you find Wikipedia or almost any online social phenomenon -- type it in. Observation may vary from year to year, but that quantity doesn't affect the fact that it is observed. 2015 was distorted a bit due to some people trying to make their own days (May 3 in Garland TX and May 29 in Phoenix AZ) and they ended up getting the press coverage because they appeared to have other motives. In any case in 2015, here is an article marking the day with many links from a popular atheist blog. Further, here is a news report of an expanded Draw Mohammed Day event in Canada on Parliament Hill that would have gone on May 20, but it was cancelled the day before by the government.24.57.193.111 (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

how about you remove these images and not appease some autistic neo-nazi retards

^ either that or you should post some more holocaust cartoons and not be hypocrites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:6C74:2AAD:BCAD:16A2 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Molly Norris

Why is there no single article devoted to Molly Norris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianlawrence (talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Julianlawrence: Because Wikipedia generally doesn't have articles about people who are notable for a single event. Instead, we have articles about the events. See WP:1EVENT and WP:BLP1E for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant images added

Broter (talk · contribs) has been adding links to several self-published drawings of Muhammad, all of which are identical copies of the same base drawing of Muhammad with different surroundings added. I have removed the list twice, for the following reasons:

• They are not relevant to the context of this article, which is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
• They are user-generated content on imgoat.com, and WP:ELNO discourages linking to user-generated content.
• They are possibly self-published by Broter, and again WP:ELNO discourages linking to one's own work.
• They don't illuminate the topic of this article in any way.

The WP:BURDEN for including these images clearly hasn't been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This images are relevant for this article!--Broter (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A mere assertion doesn't make it so. How are they relevant? You haven't addressed a single one of the points above. Again, see WP:BURDEN. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This images are relevant to the article because they are the continuation of the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Furthermore they illuminate the topic of the article by showing what can be done to explain the prophet Mohammed.--Broter (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they are any sort of "continuation" of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. They are just pictures of Mohammed that you uploaded to a public site. The topic of the article is "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". Pictures that "explain" the prophet Mohammed don't illuminate that specific topic, any more than the Charlie Hebdo images do (and those images have encyclopedic notability; yours don't). Finally, we have WP:ELNO that says to avoid such links. You need to provide a rationale grounded in Wikipedia policy to include them. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This article, per the lede, is about the 2010 event. It may be relevant that the event has been continued, but that needs to be added to the text of the article supported by high-quality reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia establishing, at least in part, that it is somehow a clear continuation of the 2010 event and not just independent action by individuals or unrelated groups. Until that's happened an EL to subsequently-created images is wholly irrelevant and inappropriate and Anachronist is correct in his/her analysis. If it is added to the text, then it can be debated whether additional images or links to additional images add anything to the article, but it's very hard for me to see how they would.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, TransporterMan. I used to give many third opinions myself (they are listed on my user page). I had no idea that 3O responses had become so formalized. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead image meets NFCC

@Seraphimblade: No free equivalent is available as it is the original poster associated with the day and is discussed in depth in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The subject of the article is "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day". The question, then, is not "Would the poster be the optimal image?", but "Is there any free image which adequately illustrates the subject 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day'"? The answer is yes, as any drawing that resulted from it serves as an adequate illustration of the subject as a whole (serving as an illustration of a particular facet of the subject is not enough to render an image irreplaceable; if that kind of narrowing down were allowed, we could never call anything replaceable). It is one of the most replaceable images there is, since literally anyone could make a free replacement with nothing more than a writing implement and piece of paper, and indeed several potential free replacements are already used in the article's "Gallery" section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: That's not quite correct. The policy reads "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There's nothing in there about the subject of the article. Actually, there is a stronger NFCC case for including the poster in the article as compared to having album covers present in album articles (the cover is not the subject of those articles) because this article article discusses in depth the poster. However if you disagree please nominate the image for deletion as orphaned fair use images can't remain on the project and we'll go through a community discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. There is no better image to represent this article than the actual poster about the subject. As such, it serves an encyclopedic purpose that cannot be served by a substitute. Seraphimblade's argument is equivalent to saying that an album cover shouldn't be used in an article about a music album because anybody can draw a public-domain picture claimed to be inspired by the album. That argument wouldn't fly anywhere on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh...no. The argument is that if someone started an event called "Everybody Draw John Lennon Day", a free piece of art inspired by the event is an adequate illustration for the subject (note, "adequate", not best), and that a Beatles album cover would not be necessary. In this case, free art is readily available, inspired by this very event, and so is an entirely appropriate and relevant illustration for the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles about movies have an image of the movie poster, not some art from a random person who was inspired by the movie. Articles about scheduled events, whether they be concerts or art exhibitions, are most appropriately illustrated by the poster for that event, particularly when the poster itself generated significant controversy covered in reliable sources. This article is about an event, and it happens to have a representative poster created specifically for that event, to publicize it, and that poster generated a protest movement and controversy that was newsworthy and covered in reliable sources, unlike the random images in the gallery. For the same reason, we show the appropriate magazine cover in the Charlie Hebdo shooting article (although it isn't in the lead). This is common sense. There is really no other image that can appropriately serve as an illustration for this particular article here, so I don't see why we should deviate from our standard common sense practice. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference is, when we're talking about a movie, we're not talking about something intended to inspire the art, even if it happened to. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, I don't see that we'd really have an alternative to the magazine cover that inspired it. There are likely no free images of the shooting incident, nor can any reasonably be expected to be made available. In this case, we are talking about an event specifically intended to encourage people to draw a certain type of picture, and we have free examples of pictures that people drew in response to it. There is no better fit than to say "This event asked people to draw X, and here's some examples of the drawings of X inspired by it". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the article. Molly Norris drew the original, poster-like cartoon on April 20, 2010, which declared May 20, 2010, to be the first annual "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" The poster inspired the day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. Unless there's no other conceivable free image that exists or could be produced to illustrate the topic, it's still replaceable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. Please let us know when you nominate the image for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it, unless you have anything further. Clear NFCC violations may be removed and may not be replaced. There is no need for a nomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a NFCC violation. If you will not start the nom I will ask someone like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, let's try another way. Do you think that the gallery images are appropriate and relevant to this article, or do you think the gallery should be removed as inappropriate or irrelevant? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The gallery can go. You may wish to review the archives for past discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather retain the gallery. But you seem to be arguing not to. If any of the gallery images are appropriate and relevant to the subject, they could be used in place of the nonfree image. We always use free images in preference to nonfree. That's the reason for the replaceability rule in the first place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No we don't. That's why we have the specific license text, "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person." We would not replace a photo of a historic moment with a non-notable free-use sketch of the historic moment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. I also agree the gallery can go, unless the pictures in it are demonstrably connected to the topic of the article and not merely random drawings of Muhammad. As the discussion immediately before this one shows, the gallery has been a magnet for wannabe artists to publicize their work to make some sort of point. Wikipedia isn't a platform for that. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

September 2019

I think these images must be removed what is the purpose of it anyway and this an educational website don't turn it into shit So just remove it Semervinx (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As we all know that these images should be removed anyone who have a little common sense knows they will offend many people so as there anyway we can remove this ?? Semervinx (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

these images are insulting and directly attack on others due to their religion semervinx (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Semervinx: Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia does not care about religious concerns. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to do with religious concerns. It's a shock image for Muslims. goatse.cx has no image. The image serves no educational value, as the article is about the movement itself. It's cultural appropriation and Wikipedians support it. Sherwilliam (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that is an assumption of bad faith. The desire to remove them would be born out of an attempt at political correctness and would, therefore, be censorship. This is not cultural appropriation; hell, the Content disclaimer explicitly states, "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures." — Richard BB 11:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has the right not to be offended. I am offended everyday by various things including religion. But in a free secular society I believe everyone has the right to believe in what they want and worship if they want. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is not censored because knowledge should be uncensored. Everyone then has free access to any and all information. Religions and cultures should be open to criticism in whatever (nonviolent) form the critic chooses. If being criticised, mocked, made fun of or whatever is too difficult to take then maybe those offended should look at themselves and their beliefs. And of course you can always not read, look at, search for or otherwise try to locate 'offensive' material. Robynthehode (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That has nothing about assuming bad faith. That's the way people here are. Mohammed has nothing to do with you. You take their Mohammed. Put it on your cups, dresses, toilets, toilet papers, or whatever. And then, you put that image on a so-called encyclopedia. If that's not cultural appropriation, nothing is. By the way, I support having Mohammed images on Mohammed article. Why? Those are paintings from Muslims themselves. As for the principles, if it's something that offends you, say goatse.cx, then you'll argue your ass off not to have that image. It's nothing to do with any principle or guideline. You shift those principles to suit your need. There's complete insensitivity toward the feelings of others. Sherwilliam (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.66.53 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Can somebody Remove these images

it is 2020 and still you people didn't get any sense . it is an educational platform and still so many irrevelant images are added don't you think it will hurt the sentiments and emotions of millions of people. And don't say wikipedia don't care about emotions maybe it dosen't but you should being a human . Also the relevant information can be provided by descriptions . To think it through it will eventually hurt the reputaion of this site plus if the purpose can be completed without offending someone then I think it should be taken . This website is for humans not robots so don't try to justify this by policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.112.53 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Offensive material. Wikipedia, by very nature of being an encyclopedia, is going to contain some offensive things from time to time. However, we are WP:NOTCENSORED and so do not remove content based on it just being offensive. — Czello 21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Remove the Cartoons images Reasons not Necessary will hurt Millions of People will increase anger and hatred recent events have shown this 39.33.112.53 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. — Czello 21:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Use Template:Hidden image for the images which seems to be unwanted to watch by some readers. 103.230.107.2 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Depiction of The "Prophet" Muhammad by Napalm filled tires.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Unclear Wording

The first sentence in the "Background" section about the South Park episodes is unclear: 'South Park episodes "200" and "201", broadcast in April 2010, featured a character in a bear costume, about whom various other characters stated was Muhammad.

What does it mean when this says "about whom various other characters stated was Muhammad"? Is the character in the bear costume being said to be Muhammad? Then "about" should be removed and the accusative case "whom" should be replaced with the nominative form "who." Is the character in the bear costume surrounded by characters who are all said to be named Muhammad? Then it should be rephrased as "around whom stood(?) various other characters that were declared (implied?) to be named Muhammad."

It doesn't really make sense to have an entire article about the issue when you're not even clarifying the exact nature of the root of the controversy. ~2026-12401-0 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The sentence is clear enough. Various characters stated that a character in a bear costume was Muhammad. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2026

To Editors of Wikipedia,

I am writing to formally demand the removal of this article.

This article centres on content that is deeply offensive and blasphemous to Muslims worldwide. The depiction of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him is strictly prohibited in Islam, and material encouraging such depictions is intentionally provocative and harmful. Hosting and preserving an article that documents and amplifies such actions causes ongoing distress to billions of Muslims.

While I understand Wikipedia’s stated commitment to neutrality, neutrality should not mean perpetuating material rooted in religious mockery. Providing a platform to events that deliberately insult sacred religious figures risks normalizing intolerance under the guise of documentation.

I request you to terminate the continued publication of this article and to remove it in the interest of respect, inclusivity, and social responsibility. ~2026-93739-1 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Give my regards to your LLM and inform it that Wikipedia is not censored. Favonian (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No need for the sarcastic response, just because Wikipedia is not censored doesn't make it acceptable, completely flawed logic on your part. The article is clearly centred on deliberately provoking, mocking and offending Muslims with the blasphemy it contains. Is it part of Wikipedia's policy to facilitate the incitement of hatred and provocation towards the Islamic faith? ~2026-93739-1 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The article simply documents the existence of this day. The fact that the day itself might be considered blasphemous to some people is not an issue for Wikipedia. We do not remove content because it is potentially offensive to some; you do not have to read the article. — Czello ^(music) 15:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The article does not simply document the existence of the day rather it contains extremely offensive and blasphemous depictions. Its is not potentially offensive, it is offensive! Why is that so hard to grasp that it is offensive towards the Muslim community and Wikipedia should not be endorsing these kind of articles which are obviously intended to cause offence and incite hatred under the false pretences, misuse and abuse of "Wikipedia is not censored and freedom of speech". It is clear to see the intent of the article. Therefore the article and its content need to be removed, deleted and destroyed permanently. ~2026-93739-1 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Elsewhere you have already been pointed to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which tells you how to adjust your settings so that images on any particular page are not shown to you. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed - in the style of Mondriaan.png (discussion)
• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed at night by Ysterius.jpg (discussion)
• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by dannyman.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Burning Mo by Librarianguish.jpg (discussion)
• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Fsm party2 by Ribarnica.jpg (discussion)
• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Mohammed by Jeff Walenta.jpg (discussion)
• Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Ultramohammed by pickmans modell.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)