Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Out of Date?

This article seems to be out of date. All the information is 2010 specific but be don't have any follow up for the next year. This being alluded to as if it were an annual event one might expect there to some followup in 2011. Does anyone know? Did youtube and facebook censor/prevent their own users from re-creating it the next year? Has Molly Norris come out of hiding? Is there a banner one could put on a news type article such as this that solicits updates to the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusl (talk • contribs) 00:34 , 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that the event is annual and the article is worded that way. There was a small amount of activity in 2011 based on a Pakistani court assuming that it was an annual event. This activity is covered in the article. There is no 2012 information in the article because nothing has happened or no one editor has added information about 2012 activities. If you find information about the subject of this article, feel free to bring it here for discussion. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 did not have such a big impact, but in 2012 there was a scandal in Pakistan over banning Twitter for a few hours because of this event: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistan-blocks-then-restores-twitter-access/2012/05/20/gIQAPqBPdU_story.html . The event was to take place on Tweeter because of the supposed blasphemous tweets of Hamza Kashgari. The tweets were very vanilla, yet Hamza faces the death sentence after being deported from Malaysia where he got in an attempt to flee Saudi Arabia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/malaysia-deports-saudi-journalist-prophet (the three tweets can be found in this article http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/blasphemous_tweets_hashtags_of_shame_malaysians_ar.php) - 31 may 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.166.35 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The event is still annual, and we still have a page on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/273836769388852 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.194.207 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Facutal Error

Text says "like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was shot to death." he wasn't shot but stabbed to death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.27.68 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I updated the text. Apparently he was shot and stabbed to death. Perhaps that was the cause of the confusion. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of Dates

I well remember that Ms. Norris posted her original cartoon (the one shown at the top of this article) some weeks before the appointed date for EDMD. That's why the event gathered so much momentum and attention, she picked a date a little in the future. This article presently states, in two places, that she first posted her cartoon on 2010 April 20, the same day as EDMD. This cannot be correct. When did she actually first post her cartoon? Friendly Person (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

EDMD was a month later (May 20th), unless I'm mistaken. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DEAR Wikipedia, Please delete the drawings of our beloved prophet.

InshaAllah you will get inner peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.221.14 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ 80.178.21.119 (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many images

Why does this article have so many random pictures of Mohammed? There is no encyclopedic value of a bunch of random pictures. Unless it is drawn or distributed in some notable way, I don't see any reason why they should all be here. This is Wikipedia, not Flickr. We have WP:CENSORED, but that doesn't throw WP:POINT and MOS:IMAGES out the window.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they're not needed but you'll have to overturn current consensus: Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day/Requirements_for_gallery_of_depictions_of_Mohammed, Talk:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day/Archive_1#Metric_for_Choosing_Drawings_for_Inclusion --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Stupid. This is the closest to vandalism editors have actually accepted onto a page. Readers do not learn or gain any information from that gallery.--Loomspicker (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I would assert that the guidelines of MOS:IMAGES are not being violated: the images are part of Wikimedia, are relevant to the article, are contained in a single gallery rather than spread through the article, are exemplary of the images drawn in response to the article topic and are not overly numerous. WP:POINT doesn't count: the images are not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. So what, exactly are your objections? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 02:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Loomspicker - Stupid? Vandalism?? You've given absolutely zero evidence to support your opinions, which are actually personal attacks on any editor that disagrees with you.

I'm not going to argue any points with you because you haven't argued a single thing. If you feel like actually presenting any sort of argument, I'll be happy to discuss those arguments with you - after and only after you apologize for your personal and ill-defined attacks.

I understand that you're a new editor (at the very least, your account has few edits) but your current method of arguing will not be tolerated. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is like having a hardcore pornographic gallery at the bottom of pornography because we can, or putting more random images at Depictions of Muhammad. It seems as this article is about the censorship of Mohammed, it goes out of its way to dump junky images on it.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

About the censorship of Muhammad? You lost me there. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Loomspicker. /Upperkatt —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not only with Loomspicker on this one, but I want to go further and point out something he was obviously very reluctant to point out for whatever reason - I'm absolutely convince that this gallery is here for the same reason images are made in the first place. That could be interpreted as mean-spirited continuation of the "campaign" described in the article, only on a small scale with images which are picked randomly. Someone claimed above how it's not WP:POINT, which I disagree, I believe it is and Loomspicker arguments covers that stance well, but even if it's not, it's certainly disregarding WP:AGFC. In this case lack of "good faith", or surplus of "bad faith" makes it very mean-spirited attempt to sneakily include these images with justification that gallery serves encyclopedic purpose as some sort of presentation, which could be quite misleading. More importantly all this business is extremely disrespectful, and it doesn't have to be.

Most of all, very problematic is the fact that article is about "campaign" not images itself, which makes decision to have this gallery extremely strange, while those in support of placing it in the article could be considered as supporters of the "campaign" itself, which finally makes them close to the subject WP:COI, a big no-no!, by the way, with respect to POV-pushingWP:ADVOCACY as well.

It is amazing how we obviously keep forgetting one small thing - Wikipedia belongs to those whose feelings will be deeply offended as well ! It's theirs too, we all know that ? If we had any respect for them, we would try and found a link to any outside web page which contains these images and placed it in appropriate section of the article, but obviously that was not intention and purpose, in the first place.

Another issue is editor OlYeller21, making a threat to Loomspicker, and accusing him for not giving any arguments and evidence. Evidence, what evidence ?! Using cheap fallacy and seeking an arguments which is already given, and evidence where evidence isn't an issue and can't be part of debate, is really presumptuous attempt to mislead and intimidate inexperienced, or as he said, "new editor". However, I agree with OlYeller21 that Wikipedians shouldn't allow personal attacks, or inflammatory responses, and I found Loomspicker had his share of problematic behavior, but in this case he made reasonable point and deserved more attention, unlike OlYeller21 who used inappropriate way to deal with it.

Yet again this idiotic business and extremely chauvinistic approach to the issue generate terrible discomfort and makes me feel ashamed of being part of this society which considers itself "ubermensch" civilization, while spiting in the face of all others, when it doesn't actually enslaving them or bombing them.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Santasa99, you may want to review the policy that Wikipedia is not censored. They meet the guidelines for use of images in an article: how you or anyone else feels about the images is irrelevant. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed out what I felt were redundant images. If someone reverts, I will not revert again. In that situation, interested editors may choose to open a well-publicized WP:RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove gallery images

Gallery: These images lack neutral point of view, verifiability and original research besides being unethical, mischievous and provocative (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). aLSO under "Photographs of identifiable people" section of Deletion policy this image has an unethical objective, i.e., to pervert freedom of expression. This image is unacceptable as it mocks the prophet, whose no real photograph is available till date. Further, the author of this image has no consent to draw this picture from the prophet's heirs (i.e. his descendants, the people of Quraish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to this article's talk archives, linked in the header. Your request has been brought up many times, and the response has always been to keep the images. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to see a mushroom cloud over San Francisco? Anyway Wikipedia is useless, just unnecessary copy-paste of people's shit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 02:03, December 22, 2014‎

We don't care about your prophet and are free to mock him as we please. And in case you didn't know, Muhammad is dead, not a living person.--Bowlhover (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Further, the author of this image has no consent to draw this picture from the prophet's heirs (i.e. his descendants, the people of Quraish)". Please be careful with issuing legal threats, no matter how obviously and ridiculously spurious they may be. --[[User:Saddhiyama|Saddhiyama]t s] (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bowlhover does this also mean that we are also free to mock your family and you . Also keep your stupid personal thoughts to yourself

Charlie Hebdo reference unnecessary?

This sentence was added to the article: "In 2015, 17 people were killed and 21 people were wounded in a series of terrorist attacks targeting Charlie Hebdo employees, leading Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula to praise the killers and call for more killings of cartoonists who "insult Islam"." I'm not sure the reference to the Charlie Hebdo shooting is at all necessary for this article since it doesn't have anything directly to do with Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. We don't include every controversy about a Mohammed cartoon in this entry. But I wanted to post it here for any possible discussion before I remove it myself. — Hunter Kahn 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That incident has nothing to do with this article. --Geniac (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. It's only tangentially relevant, at best, to the topic of this article. I have removed the sentence. An entry in the "See also" section would suffice. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's a good solution. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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)