Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sourced quote page, with text from lede of English Wikipedia article at link w:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikiquote was an art gallery. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well there isn't really a firm image policy on Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
But I'm glad we both agree it is a form of art. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
My two cents: Sarcasm aside, I'm not sure that having a full gallery is necessary. This same gallery is on the WP page for this subject, and I believe that is a better place for it. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
There was no sarcasm. And I disagree, and Wikiquote image policy doesn't address this issue. -- Cirt (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I actually was referring to sarcasm on someone else's part, not yours. But I do agree that the image policy does not cover this circumstance - and I believe this is a hole that should be discussed. I just am of the opinion that having a gallery goes beyond illustrating quotations and more toward the arena of an encyclopedic entry. I know you disagree, but I was just adding my opinion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, understood. And thank you for the polite way in which you've imparted your opinion. I agree with you that there are plenty of holes in the Wikiquote image policy that should be discussed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Gallery removed[edit]

I've gone ahead and taken the initiative to voluntarily remove the gallery, please see DIFF. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Unnotable and pointless quote[edit]

I am surprised to see a very non-notable and confusing quote, simply said "Yeah I want to water down the targets". Notably I rarely found it beyond 2 or 3 websites, some not even not really notable by themselves except Telegraph.

Most importantly, the quote usually appears together with " a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid."

However, the quote is also very confusing and unclear what it's talking about by itself. I don't understand why the quote's there at all. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

DanielTom is refusing to talk so far, despite calling me annoying earlier. A reader is unlikely to understand what the statement is about unless he checked the source.
The above statement DanielTom is not really notable, not by itself anyway. But it is a part of a whole continous statement as Norris' response to a radio host, or at least a variation of it is.
I suggest reporting the original statement as said by the original source Seattlest.
"Yeah, I want to water down the targets...As a cartoonist I just felt so much passion about what had happened I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message they sent about feeling afraid."
This will prevent all the problems above, somewhat, and make it clear what the speaker's intention is. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
While related, the two quotes are independent. Your lack of understanding is hardly grounds for removing the first quote. The second quote is already given in the main article (immediately below). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
If you haven't figured it out it was part of a question regarding being sure/fear and risks.
You are only using a single source that doesn't use it as part regarding Comedy Central. Even then it is part of a statement regarding risks. Using a part of a statement, by itself itself, isn't anything notable especially when mentioned by a few sources. And the sources you used, don't exactly match with each other.
When one can't even unserstand its topic, why should it be there? Without the context, the single statement not only not notable by itself, but confusing as well as regards to what is its subject. I've solved this problem by merger described above as part of the same reply. So to keep the notability intact and context in the mind, I have merged the two. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
What she said (according to the RawStory article) is: "I wanna water down the targets. I haven't really organized it yet. I posted it on Facebook and I have gotten a couple drawings of Mohammed. I guess I gotta follow through and put them on a deck of cards or something. As a cartoonist, I felt so much passion about what's happened and I wanted to kind of counter Comedy Central's message that they sent about being afraid. That's a cartoonist's job, is to be non-PC." (my emphasis). This was quoted without the preceding question "regarding being sure/fear and risks", and it is perfectly understandable. You have now merged the two quotes in bold because of your lack of understanding. The Telegraph article quotes only the first part. There was no need to merge them. Anyway, your "solution" is of course better than simply removing the part you didn't understand, and I don't really mind it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
My purpose was to demonstarte the relevance of the quote to the topic of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". It's not necessary that everything someone said is related. Nor necessary a part of a reply or Q&A by itself is notable especially when hardly mentioned by itself.
What I actually said was I am adding it the way Seattlest mentioned it. I never claimed it to be every word of the statement, that's the reason behind "...". Raw Story mentions the full statement, Seatllest only the part. Telegraph mentions it's context with the radio host asking if she is sure. One source is partially different than the other. That is how modern news functions it seems.
However, Seattlest achieves the function of providing the relation to the topic and the statement assumes relevance. That's why I chose it. Had you talked with me before, you could have easily avoided an unnecessary edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
In removing the quote, your concern about context (even if legitimate) came across as just another one of your censorship attempts; it is true, however, that the two articles I cited provide context in different ways, and more context never hurts, which is why I haven't objected to your last changes. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I never censor. I only remove something that is not notable or not much notable or not connected to the topic. Everything else can remain. Your edits came across as another of your unprofessional conduct, where instead of engaging in a proper conduct, you didn't discuss for long. But it seems you had a misunderstanding.
It is unfortunate that some users get offended and start edit-warring even if I started the discussion and start lying or making their own claims as well. I am open to discussion as long as the agenda is actually cooperation and not what the other person wants at all cost. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)