Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Old

1. Grocer 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Chtito 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep of course! The very article is about these pictures!
3. KEEP KEEP KEEP! MAKE IT BIGGER!! EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DEEP-THROATED WITH IT.. THANKS Hellznrg 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Keep Nobody disputes the existence of the images. There is no hypocrisy in showing this image here. Wikipedia has both an article for the Holocaust and the Holocaust Denial. Don’t sensor the images and let people judge the truth for themselves. --Thunder 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. FWBOarticle 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) People who don't like the image can simply off image loading function of their browser. Plus, use of image here is totally referential. Should we ban the use of word "nigger" in the article titled "nigger"?
7. Smapti 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Maverick 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Vagodin ^Talk 19:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
10. User:slamdac 20.01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Babajobu 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Sol. v. Oranje 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
13. EuroSong 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
14. KimvdLinde 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Valtam 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Septentrionalis 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Discus2000 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Neim 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    User's only edits are to this talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

19. UltraSkuzzi 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
20. AlEX 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Snailwalker | talk 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
22. StuffOfInterest 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Nfitz 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Homestarmy 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Jaco plane 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
28. --Ridethecurve 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. --Candide, or Optimism 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
31. DanielDemaret 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
33. --Lassefolkersen 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
34. The.valiant.paladin 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
35. Thparkth 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
36. Zerak-Tul 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
37. gidonb 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep I believe that the initial publication of these images does not exhibit very good taste. Yet given that the images have been published and became a focus of international discussion and tension, the publication here has significant encyclopedic value.
38. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
39. --Tatty 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.
40. Skleinjung 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Keep: When I first looked at this article yesterday, the images were not present. I wasn't aware of the controversy at the time, but spent time searching for the images elsewhere, because I felt seeing them was necessary to understand what specifically was being discussed.
41. MartinHagberg 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - the image is extremely important in order to fully understand the article.
42. Astrotrain 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia should never give in to religious fanatics.
43. Pat Payne 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) STRONGLY in favor of keeping. They are central to the controversy, and must be seen to be understood.
44. --Anchoress 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
45. Jdonnis 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Freedom of Speech is more important the religious feelings
46. joturner 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
47. Chaldean 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
48. Phr 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The image should be somewhere in the article but should be moved and resized smaller. Main picture for the article should be something different.
49. Maprieto 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
50. Denoir 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
51. rst20xx 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is generally neutral, but in one sense that it is not neutral is that it believes in freedom of speech. Clearly the image is relevent to the article, therefore putting it in would be sensible, and this coupled with Wikipedia's belief in freedom of speech means it must stay.
52. --Prospero74 22:28,2 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech! Top, right-justified. Wikipedia is neutral and should not yield to hiding the central theme of the discussion. This is a global community, not an encyclopedia based on a certain creed.
53. —Ruud 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
54. the wub "?!" 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
55. --Tasc 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
56. --The_stuart 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC) We should even have indepth descriptions of each cartoon!
57. --Alvestrand 22:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) keep
58. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
59. abakharev 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
60. Definitely. See the content disclaimer, linked to from the bottom of every page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
61. -- Vanky 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
62. --Jbull 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
63. Keep. Doesnt matter where in the article, but as big and legible as possible. The multiplication of rumors and introduction of additional pictures makes it imperative that the original images are accurately and legibly displayed. The reader needs to see just what trivial pictures someone is willing to kill over. Dalembert 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
64. --Nathan (Talk) 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
65. --FRS 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
66. Wikipedia is not censored. Not for minors, and not for religious beliefs. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
67. Keep and enlarge--GeLuxe 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
68. --Cipher Pipe 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
69. --omoo 2 February 2006 (19:15 EST)
70. --Keep, or redefine what Wikipedia is about. Eixo 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
71. Second Cuiviénen Wynler 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
72. --Keep, but given the number of Muslims in the world and the potential size of the Muslim wikipedia community, we should maybe consider moving it to the bottom if Wikipedia is to not lose a sizeable chunk of its readership. L33th4x0r 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
73. --Tarawneh 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Well, the reason behind this dilemma is the pictures; it would be meaningless not put them in the top. But it should be clear that the Pictures are merely the POV of the Cartoonist.
74. AllanRasmussen 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
75. --BACbKA 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) bottom placement only, otherwise count me as Delete
76. Hitokirishinji 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) No kneeling to any one group of people to make them "feel" good. Truth and freedom.
77. --Mido 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) it should be in the article, at top, it's the main reason behind the problem and it's how they IMAGINED him.
78. Zora 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The reason for the prohibition on images was prevention of idolatry; no Muslim would be tempted to worship those cartoons.
79. --*drew 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
80. --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
81. Lenineleal 01:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Freedom of speech. Wikipedia should not abide by the laws of Islamofascism.
82. Titanium Dragon 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it where it is (at the top), it belongs there and is 100% relevant to the article.
83. Keep at the top, it's relevant and a good illustration of the topic. That's all that matters.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
84. Keep Wikipedia should never bow to religious fanaticism. 209.51.77.64 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
85. Keep, as per many people above me. Jdcooper 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
86. KEEP. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is infinitely more absolute than any commandment of Islam. AscendedAnathema 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
87. --Greasysteve13 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
88. Aarondude919 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
89. KEEP the image in the article, but not necessarily front and centre; and this poll has itself become a comment on "Islam, freedom of speech, terrorism, religious tolerance, etc" (doesn't the last comment in the ninth "no" vote just say it all). 203.198.237.30 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
90. Has anyone seen him? How do you know he even looks like that anyway? SilentC 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
91. Fufthmin 04:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
92. 146.163.218.221 04:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
93. Lankiveil 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia must not allow special interest groups to dictate what we may or may not see, and what we may or may not publish.
94. Kjaergaard 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn has a picture on the top too.
95. Tbeatty 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
96. Andrewseal 05:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) On the condition that it is moved below the fold. If you're browsing Wikipedia, you're probably already in love with your scroll wheel. I think a bit of scrolling is worth keeping content accessible to the group that, in the main, this concerns.
97. --God of War 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
98. KEEP. ??? 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
99. --Sbatchu 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC), Wikipedia compromises it's purpose and principles if it sets a precedent of allowing itself to be bullied into concealing facts--the cartoons did exist and did get printed--because it hurts the sensibilities of a few.
100.  — TheKMan^talk 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
101. Keep,same size , same placement.Waleeed 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
102. Keep Your religion is no better than mine.
103. You can't jihad wikipedia can you? Perhaps this shows the world that radical islam ISN'T the true way. Swatjester 07:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
104. Cacophobia (Talk) 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
105. --OliverW 08:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
106. WP:NOT "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Acetic Acid 08:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
107. Just keep it like it is. -- Trollkontroll 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
108. The Wikipedia is the obvious place to look for uncensored information. Keep it live and prominent.Philmurray 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
109. --Pmsyyz 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The image is the whole point of this article.
110. --Kyaa the Catlord 09:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) KEEP, it is common sense to keep the image which is the basis of the article.
111. --Without seeing the image, we can have neither rational discussion nor informative artical so that people can make up their own mind. Also, trying to appease one religious group would open a can of worm, everybody from Atheists to Christian Fundamentalists will demand the same treatment. Mparthas
112. Keep Should be on top because without it the article is almost useless. Pyro19 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
113. Keep Only way rational discussion can make sense. Otherwise, people only see the two deliberately offensive images shown briefly in most media, not the whole thing. And Muslims do not insist that non-Muslims comply with Islamic law, surely? And there have been cartoons showing the Jewish and Christian God, despite the commandment, and nobody has threatened to kill anyone over them. And I give you Piss Christ, as an example of a Wikipedia article that you only go to if you are happy to see the picture. Skittle 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
114. Keep and in as prominent position as possible. It's the very point of the article. Aris Katsaris
115. Keep but be sensitive in presentation (i.e. do not have a top)--JK the unwise 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
116. Keep. It's kind of necessary for the article. We're reproducing material that made the news–not endorsing it as a sign of freedom of speech like the newspapers. gren ??? ^? 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
117. Keep it is essential to the event. AdamSmithee 12:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
118. Keep The pictures explain the article. But i agree that they shouldn't be on the top of the page. Hypnotical 13:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
119. Keep (I also vote for moving to separate page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
120. Keep If there is a controversy, which there undoubtedly is, readers should be able to know what that controversy is about. The cartoons are vital to the controversy, and are therefore vital to an article about that controversy. Also, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
121. Keep Wikipedia is here to impart information - all information. People say we're being eurocentric, but if a cartoon were so offensive to Christians, it would surely not be removed. People say that we don't need to create a provocation to talk about a provocation, but the provocation is already created, and it garners a better understanding for one to know what the fuss is all about. They say that it shouldn't be printed because it's against Muslim law, but saying the true name of God is against Jewish law, and that's not censored. They say the site is already censored by Congress, but Congress has never stepped in, and if they did, there would be an outrage. The fact that this is even a debate is a sad reflection on our values, too afraid to offend to do what we're here to do. Twin Bird 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
122. Keep It's not violating any rule of Wikipedia, neither violating any international law. Wikipedia is not standing under the Shariah. No Muslim is forced to open this page. RapaNui 14:39, 3 February 2006 (CET)
123. Keep If someone says he's offended by my eating/drinking/breathing/living, etc., I'm not obliged to stop doing these things. I find this demand equally unreasonable. deeptrivia (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
124. Keep Absolutely. Enlarge too, full page - people want to see this. Censoring an article because it is offensive to someone isn't in the best interests of an encyclopedia. What next? Maybe the evolution page should be deleted? corelog 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
125. Keep At the top, in the current size as a sidebar to the first paragraph --Sommerfeld 14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
126. Keep --TheMidnighters 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
127. Keep --Knio 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
128. Keep, this is policy. ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
129. Keep Firstly, this is policy. We have kept articles on the Iranian presidents remarks about Israel; which are orders of magnitude worse IMO. Secondly, have you seen these? http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm. The muslim world is guilty of more henious caricatures than this one. It stays. Avi 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
130. The cartoons are intentionally offensive...and we should keep them. "I disagree with everything you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Voltaire. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. " Orwell.----Snorklefish 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
131. Keep obviously per policy. Block any and all hypocritical POV-pushers that want to censor Wikipedia. jni 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
132. Keep. 193.77.153.149 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
133. 'Keep No particular religious group's dogma should not dictate Wikipedia. (Entheta 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
134. Keep.--Eloquence* 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This is an article about the cartoons. Our purpose is to provide useful information. A fair use sample of the cartoons is useful information. That is all there is to be said; everything else is POV.
135. Keep. Without it, why do we even have Wikipeida? Jsnell 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
136. Keep--Donar Reiskoffer 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
137. Keep. On top. Utopianheaven 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
138. Keep. We shouldn't deleted it because it offends a select group of people. It clearly is of encyclopedic value.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
139. Keep. as per Entheta. Veej 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
140. Keep. But perhaps move the image next to the full description as it reads easier, plus it would stop the complaints about the images being in such a prominent position.Logan1138 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
141. Sure, why the hell not ? Darkoneko 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
142. Keep. This is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" -- they are the cartoons. Although I would have them "below the fold". --JGGardiner 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
143. Keep. Topical, crucial to illustrate the subject. I have to add that most of the arguments to censor this image are despicable, and that it is the honour and duty of any free man to stand against such things. Rama 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
144. Keep. --NilsB 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
145. Keep. The information is useful; if anyone likely to be offended by cartoons of Muhammad clicks on a link that says "Muhammad cartoons controversy," well, they're asking for it. I feel cheapened, however, by being forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a whole pile of assholes who support the keep for confrontational or race-baiting reasons. MattShepherd 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Please point out where you see someone 'baiting' someone's race! Valtam 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
146. Keep. Intrinsic part of the article which is very important for understanding the debate. Erudy 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
147. keep Poll should be closed Lotsofissues 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
148. keep as it is Poll should be closed Palmerston 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
149. BMF81 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
150. Keep, of course. J-b 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
151. Keep them, please ! Gérard 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
152. Keep, definitely. 0836whimper 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
153. Keep, There is plenty of content that discusses controversial issues, such as the Six-Day War article which includes an Arab cartoon of Nasser kicking the "Jews into the sea." Its presense in Wikipedia only documents such controversy, not supports one side or another. —Aiden 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
154. Keep. English Wikipedia conforms to the freedom of the press ideals of the English-speaking world, which grows out of Western civilization. IMHO, Muslims are demonstrating the incompatibility of Islam with the Western world by their (hypocritical) outrage (they demand respect for their religion, but do not respect the religions of others). Godfrey Daniel 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
155. Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, period, and displaying this image is absolutely necessary to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. --Cyde Weys 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
156. Keep -Semnoz 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
157. Keep, Wikipedia is not censored to preserve the sensitivities of a few. This image will probably offend some, and I am sorry for that, but that does not mean that it should be covered up. Nobody has the right not to be offended. MichelleG 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
158. Keep - strong, most definite keep. The pictures are essential to understanding what this article is about. We should value freedom of expression above all else. There is far, far worse printed in the Arabian press on a daily basis.--Kalsermar 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
159. Keep. Roby 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
160. Keep- We can't move backwards to the dark ages, we must move forward--M4bwav 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
161. Keep- We shouldn't tolerate censorship like this. It may be offensive to some, but is not to most people. The response of some of the people opposed to the catoons neatly sums up 'irony'. Tristanb 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
162. Keep - We can't get perspective on the controversy without seeing the pictures. Paulb42 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
163. Keep, Wikipedia is not censored. Should we next remove all images of women whose faces are not covered? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
164. Keep per Lewk_of_Serthic. Actually, Keep per pretty much every prior voter in this column. --Aaron 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
165. Keep the image as per many above. We need the image to see what the contoversy is about, and wikipedia is not censored. DES ^(talk) 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
166. Keep. The image must not be censored, but neither is it necessary for educational purposes to place it at the top of the page where it's potentially offensive and off-putting.--Pharos 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
167. Keep. If it is good enough for Piss Christ, good enough for here. We would not want to be inconsistent for the sake of political correctness. --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
168. Keep. Reasonable discussion requires information. How can one debate the issue without seeing what the issue is about? Coleca 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
169. Keep. NPOV does not mean "nonffensive", particularly when one finds the very existence or acknowledgement of opposing views offensive. Furthermore, I suspect many of those objecting would have no problem with images considered blasphemous to other religions. Soultaco 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
170. Keep. Anyone who has been Catholic knows the two New York "desecrations" of Jesus. I could care less, why should some ass bedevil me? Same here. People should realize religious stubborness is what leads to violence. This clearly depicts that. Explicitly showing the picture is important, it goes both ways baby. JHerdez
171. Keep. We shouldn't remove the image the article is about. That seems pretty obvious. Kaldari 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
172. Keep. It's news and an established fact, so it belongs in an encyclopedia. If people didn't like what happened in the Vietnam War, would we take that out? Matt White 03:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
173. Keep. When the issue is the image it is impossible to cover it without the image itself. Timrollpickering 03:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
174. Keep. No compromise with freedom of expression. Image vital to understanding article. Argyrios 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
175. Keep Like a wonderful gal by the name of Irshad Manji says Faith is not threatened by dissent. Dogma, on the other hand, is. --CltFn 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
176. Keep. It is impossible to discuss religion broadly without occasionally offending certain points of view. Wikipedia can maintain NPOV while showing the cartoons. (See Anti-Semitism) Mike Serfas
177. Keep If everything "Nazi" had been destroyed after the second world war, no one would be able to see what it was about. The same is true if the catholic church had been able to burn books and people indefinitely. Radical muslims have already destroyed sculptures in Afghanistan because they do not fit in with their beliefs. It comes down to this. If you censor here, you might unwittingly be helping other people censor Wikipedia itself. Accountable Government 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
178. Keep the picture of the entire page as it appeared in the newspaper and the link to the high-resolution cartoons. Maybe move the picture down beside the no-nonsense bulleted annotations found under the heading "Publication of the drawings". Together, they permit readers to judge the cartoons, the decision to publish them, and the protests against them, on their merits. --Bwiki 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
179. Keep. The initial publication was disrespectful and ill advised, though completely legal. In Wikipedia, it is neutral and for purely descriptive purposes. In fact their inclusion in an encyclopedia article which illustrates a major World controversy may better serve to showcase the insensitivity of such images. --AladdinSE 06:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
180. Keep. Well said AladdinSE. This is quite simply a censorship issue. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
181. Keep. Wikipedia is about neutrality and against censorship. One with Her 06:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
182. Keep. Does the Muslim audience here not think that Piss Christ was offensive to Christian's and their prophet Jesus? 24.89.215.104 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
183. Keep. To even ask the question is ridiculous. There is no exception to freedom of expression for so-called "religious sensitivities."
184. Keep. This is a definite attack on a reactionary religion which keeps people oppressed and misguided, and can only stem the Islamistic regression...if not passive imperialism.--OleMurder 19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
185. Keep. Weregerbil 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
186. Keep ? P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
187. Keep 1652186 12:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
188. Keep. There is no place for censorship in Wikipedia. Absolutely fundamental that we resist pressure to do so. Nick Fraser 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
189. Keep The article is about the cartoons and the pictures are essential for it. No amount of words can describe what really was there in the cartoons. Gaurav1146 14:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
190. Keep. It's what the article is about. No-one is forced to read it, and no-one is forced to have images shown in his/her browser. It's in the spirit of Wikipedia to present all information relevant to a topic. The images are relevant. Neurino 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
191. Keep. It's what the article is about. Valentinian 16:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
192. Keep. violet/riga (t) 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
193. Keep. Wikipedia is not about (self)censoring information. Should people find things offensive, they must be aware that they are not obliged to look at this picture.-- Nomen Nescio 16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
194. keep 142.167.214.255 17:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
195. Keep Freedom of Speech SomeGod 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
196. Keep! Tbc2 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
197. Strong Keep no censorship. __earth ^(Talk) 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
198. 'KEEP! Getting rid of it would defeat the object of wikipedia. Its an encyclopedia, so what sort of article would this be without evidence of the main subject? 17:46, 4 Febuary 2006 (UTC)
199. The cartoons are the most useful thing on the page. 1000 words. Ashibaka tock 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
200. Keep - this is Wikipedia, a symbol of freedom! David 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
201. Keep Free information all the way! Anclation 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
202. Keep How can people have an informed view of the controvercy without seeing these images? Wikipedioa has key advantages over commercial media iin being able to publish such things without fear of economic consequences so its particularly important that this freedom is not constrained by self censorship. The muslims who make a pretence about being offended by these images need to listen to Sistani who seems to be one of the few leading muslim theologians to recognise the importance of muslim terrorism in generating such images of their prophet. GregLondon 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

     Er, yeah, that's right: Wikipedia requires no funding whatever, it runs entirely on pixie dust. Let's all remember that next time there's a $250,000 fundraiser. I trust you'll make up the shortfall Greg? --bodnotbod 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

203. Keep Let us not forget that this article will be here presumably for years after the controversy has died down. Future readers on both sides of the debate will require access to the images that sparked the uproar in the first place in order to gain somme form of comprehension why it happened. Future Wikipedians will be able to see why a significant part of the world was enraged, or perhaps why future media is leery to publish such images. Yaztromo 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I love WikiPedia. Long live free speech along side with respect. Certainly nobody can be forced to be respectful. However one of the intrinsic mandates of Wikipedia is to be respectful among others. I am asking: how can you be "respectful and polite" by showing a cartoon that's exclusive intent is to point fingers to members of a particular religion by disrespecting and ridiculing a prophet! The publishers of these cartoons can choose to be disrespectful. I choose to protest them and respect everything that anybody thinks is divine or holy. And I would love to see Wikipedia to choose RESPECT. BuLenT
2. Rajab 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
3. This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!... Resid Gulerdem 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

   Your point is wrong. Period. Check your talk page. Hitokirishinji 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

   My point is valid! And very strong! I couldn't see anyting worth to mention in my talk page. I couldn't see a message from you, either. Do not discuss here, use the place provided below... In a wiki article, we cannot include an insult! It is not 'freedom of speech' and against any rules you can name and common sense! Insult is not a value to insist on or to support, it is a mental pathology which requires a professional treatment, caused by lack of ideas and lack of emphaty!... Resid Gulerdem 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

4. --Cretanforever 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
5. (Cloud02 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
6. Memty 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden. Every time I enter the page I click as fastly as i can to the "discussion" to dont see the cartoon. That is raping the holy things of Islam. And putting this cartoon in the article is like "show the movie of a raped woman to her husband". And it is not about "freedom". If you want to show the cartoon you can give a link to Magazine site. That dont disturbs the muslims and people can see the cartoon if they want. [[Kullanici:Ruzgar|Ruzgar]] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Erdemsenol (threats against wikipedia deleted.)
9. From an international understanding point of view, the cartoons are so upsetting to millions of muslims worldwide, that I believe this consensus to keep the cartoons is a wrong one. It is however, the decision of the body of Wikipedians, and I will protect the images in sorrow.--File Éireann 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. alimustafakhan I think Wikipedia should delete the picture immidietly. For two reason, first, it is an encyclopedia - not a place to redicule my Prophet (peace be upon him). Second in its own words "Not only is this talk page not the right place for it, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Here, we are polite, thoughtful, smart, geeky people, trying only to do something which is undoubtably good in the world: write and give away a free encyclopedia." How can you be good, polite and thoughtful if you abuse the person loved and respected by over a billion over their own parents and everybody else in the world. I see this as insulting, rude and foolish thing to do. This is not fanaticism, this is basics of Islam. Something similar to "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Say how would a Jew react if you drew a picture of His G-d? If

Wikipedia does not remove this picture Muslim Wikipedians around the World would have another opinion of Wikipedia.

1. Esref 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no point in adding injury to the insult. Don't.
2. Eric 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Rustam 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Insulting Muslims by showing these pictures is not an NPOV at all. I love Wikipedia, but it's not uncensored as you think, since it's censored by US Congress. Muslims could boycott Wikipedia and then the key idea of its creation will be violated. Looking at the left column makes me think that all we have is the European POVs, not NPOVs.
4. This is a POV, wikipedia should have none WikieZach 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. I vote for deletion Wisesabre 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. I vote for deletion too Qatarson
7. I vote for deletion --Shafei 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. I vote for deletion too ?????

   Users only edit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

9. Delete --Ragib 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Immediatelt Delete the Picture because a respectable place like Wikipedia should not involve itself in the Picture Conroversy atleast. By publishing this Picture Wikipedia is doing no good to its reputation. Though the article is enough for generating information but reproduction of a picture places Wikipedia in the same line in which the Danish Newspaper stands right now. My appeal to Jimbo Wallis is to remove the picture immediately --Nigar
11. Delete. I am agnostic myself, but many of our muslim users undoubtedly find the picture very offensive. Freedom of speech is one of my most important values, but it shouldn't be used to justify unnecessary insults towards some religion most of us even aren't very familiar with. The second best option would be to move the picture to a separate page with the proper warnings. It is quite central considering the topic of the article, after all. Hectigo 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Delete04:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Delete By having this photo here, in effect under protection by its sys admins, wikipedia is involving itself in a sensitive and controversial matter. I also agree with what Hectigo said (in particular the bit about many Wikipedians nt beng familiar with Islam). Arno 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
14. I vote for delete Nystrxz 04:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Delete I'm not one who usually likes to pander to religious sensitivities, but the cartoons cause needless offense, offense taken very very seriously; moreover, the images are easily available elsewhere, and so there is little need to have them here. - 08:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Delete Muneyama 16:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) That these images are on english wikipedia is a shame for the entire international wikipedia community!

1. Why to show these pictures that are shocking for muslims, while hiding those whith sexual content (I mean, no X pictures, but anatomic ones) ? They don't hurt me, so why should they be hidden ? I think that the same treatment should be aplicated to both. [Skippy]
2. gidonb 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) second choice only, if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice. first choice is keep
3. Showing a picture of Muhammed is extremely offensive to Muslims. There are no portraits at Muhammed and so they should definately not be shown here - provide a link to the image, thats all thats needed -- Astrokey44|talk 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Whilst I'm a British, white athiest who would - actually - like a world in which religion didn't exist, it isn't at all clear to me that any non-muslims have taken the time to understand that the muslim community is telling us that any image of Muhammad is regarded as a blasphemy. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me why we would insist on stirring up strong emotions when we can leave the image, with a warning that it may cause offence, behind a link; leaving the responsibility of "choosing to be offended" with the muslim audience. --bodnotbod 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. I'm in favor of a link, or at least placing it where it can be easily scrolled off the page, because I think that would increase readership of the article. Currently, a reader in a Muslim environment cannot read the article without seeing the image. If the reader is in a cybercafe, or a child using the computer in his/her parents' home, the reader may be unwilling to take the risk of being seen with the images. Geffb 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. I don't see why the pictures can't be linked from the article page. Then no one will be forced to see them. As for showing them at all, I think they have to be available since without viewing them one cannot have an informed opinion. Zaslav 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7. I think this is the appropriate solution for this neutral Wikipedia. sentausa 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
8. We have Spoiler warnings so people do not see things they do not want to. How is this any different? Shen 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Move (I also vote for keeping at main page, as I think that is OK too.)--Niels Ø 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
10. This is what I think is a reasonable solution. Free Speech is great, but it is blatant that these images are causing more offence than anything on Wikipedia. It is without precedent. This will give access to the images for those who are interested, but allow those who are offended to learn about all sides of the controversy. Kouros 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
11. I strongly defend Wikipedia's right to include the images. The anti-Semitism article displays numerous offensive drawings. Nonetheless, I believe it is proper for us to choose not to display this image in the main article, but to link to it instead. The information will be there for those who want to see it, while those who are deeply offended can at least read and edit the article. Speech that stops dialog dead in its tracks is best avoided.--agr 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
12. Of the three choices in this poll, I guess i'll have to choose this one. The image is obviously offending muslims, however, as previously mentioned, the image does exist, so we should have the right to view it if we want. A link to it helps solve the problem.--dbalsdon 16:05, 3 Febuary 2006(UTC)
13. If the picture isn't removed (at the moment) then at least put it at the end or shrink the thumbnailRajab 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
14. skrshawk The images add an indisputable capability for the viewer to objectively determine an opinion for themselves. Nonetheless, much like any objectionable content, a person should be given the choice to view it with full understanding of what they are about to view. Linking to them on a seperate page gives the prospective viewer fair warning. 23:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Have the image offered as a link at the top of the article. I do not believe in needlessly offending people's religious sensitivities. While we should not be overly careful about applying that principle, this is clearly a case where the image has caused outrage among very large numbers of people and therefore we have a responsibility not to shove the image directly into the faces of those people. Muslims who are offended by the images should be able to read this article without having to see them; at the same time, others should be able to see them if they wish, because it contributes to understanding of the topic to see the images. So I think a link is the best solution. Everyking 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Freedom of speech is a fundamental value that must be protected, and the authors of the cartoon have the right to express their opinions toward Muhammad in this way; deletion is unacceptable. Respect and sensitivity are virtues that I strongly believe in; showing this picture prominently here violates them. In order to preserve freedom of speech while showing respect and sensitivity to those who have devoted their lives to the cause of Islam and love its prophet, please replace the picture with a link to another page. --Acooley 14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Danish wiki has a link only, in part because the license "fair use" is disallowed there. That does not degrade the Danish article. IMHO everybody, including muslims, should be able to read this article without being offended by its illustration - and to view it, if they want to. Keeping it adds to the POV of the subject matter. --Sir48 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Move it and add a warning so that Muslims don't have to view a picture they find offensive but can still contribute to the debate. The middle road would allow us to defuse the issue and move onto something productive. Same old story though - flame wars - everyone talking but no one listening. Nickj69 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
19. I agree - move it and add a warning. The information should be availabile, but we don't need to force it on people who find it offensive.