Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Polls - CLOSED

How long will these stay in progress? Does anyone seriously think the outcome will change at this point? Can we now draw a line under this, call the poll closed, and archive them? Thparkth 12:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The summary of the poll results are in Old polls

Image Poll

Have picture in the article (size and placement TBD) Delete Move to separate page and link the image
  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. JtkieferT | 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.  — TheKMantalk 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. --Siva1979Talk to me 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.--Holland 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)
  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.
  11. Esref 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no point in adding injury to the insult. Don't.
  12. Eric 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. 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.
  14. This is a POV, wikipedia should have none WikieZach 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. I vote for deletion Wisesabre 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. I vote for deletion too Qatarson
  17. I vote for deletion --Shafei 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. I vote for deletion too ?????
    Users only edit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Delete --Ragib 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. 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
  21. 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)
  22. Delete04:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. I vote for delete Nystrxz 04:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. 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.

Poll 2 Position of image

Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)

  1. I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--File Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. (Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
  3. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.
  4. User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Phr 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons. The top picture should be one that shows the controversy. Move the cartoon pic.
  6. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    so do i (Cloud02 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
  7. L33th4x0r 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Link to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.
  8. Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Link--Niels Ø 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)
  10. --Uf.Chaos 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have picture lower down the article

Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. Poulsen 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. As per the Bahá'u'lláh precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --BACbKA 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet I want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example autofellatio), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy article is not the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at child pornography at all. —Ruud 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. As per images of child pornography, see Lolicon. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. Babajobu 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top I can agree with this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of Goatse.cx, and if not, why not. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Placing the goatse image at the top of that article is possibly obscenity under Florida law (where the servers are hosted). This image is not obscene under that same law. Apples and oranges. MichelleG 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
  7. Place just after the break, with at the top "Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive. A mirror of this page, without images, is at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images)" --GeLuxe 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Wikipedia articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary. But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV; this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO. Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship: the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article. Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. Guppy313 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in Bahá'u'lláh article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- The Anome 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--JK the unwise 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Agree with The Anome. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.Veej 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. I would move the images “below the fold”. It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence. I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now. --JGGardiner 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Move down, as per Jimbo. David Sneek 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Move below the fold. Since this was my proposal originally, I'll have to vote for it. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Move to body of article per above, more or less. We're not losing any educational content by this and indeed we're gaining the better will of our diverse readership by a little courtesy.--Pharos 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Move to the (sub)section "Publication of the drawings". It should be just beside the no-nonsense bulleted annotations, which contain translations of all Danish (and Farsi) text found in the cartoons as well as a bit of context. That way all the material needed to judge the cartoons (and the decision to publish them) on their merits will be in one place. --Bwiki 07:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Voting move down with note at top of article that image is present lower down, as per my comments prior to this vote. -- The Anome 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Move next to explanation (as per 15 above). As for as I'm concerned the argument for keeping the image at top is flawed: the article is about the controversy, not about the image.Dmaftei 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. This option would not offend the casual muslim reader, but would still allow the picture to be accessable to anyone who wishes to view it.Bogfjellmo 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. We could have both free speech and respect. It's not mutually exclusive and placing the article at lower level is the least we can do.__earth (Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. MoveWhile most of us appear to agree that the image is important, and should be available, I think it is quite clear that it does offend a significant minority of the community; perhaps more so than any other image on Wikipedia. For that reason alone, having it at the top of the page, without any warning, is I think, inappropriate. In other articles where we have had such issues, it hasn't been an issue to move the image down, make it less prominent, etc. I don't know why this wouldn't be everyone's automatic reaction here, given that people are genuinely offended!. Just because it's legal to display the image, doesn't mean that it is proper to do so prominently! Nfitz 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have picture at top of article

  1. Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be Hellznrg 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sol. v. Oranje 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.
  5. joturner 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.
    Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger wikipedia image page at the top. The user will know.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Tatty 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).
  7. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Ruud 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.
  9. Jacoplane 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top
  11. the wub "?!" 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. The cartoons are the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --KimvdLinde 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. -- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.
  20. Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. --Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.
  22. — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").
  23. --Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. Eixo 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, keep at the top. Cipher Pipe 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. The image stays at the top. Passw0rd 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other wikipedia articles. Wynler 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. StuffOfInterest 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Hitokirishinji 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.
  31. Zora 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.
  32. Thparkth 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.
  33. --*drew 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. The.valiant.paladin 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. --Mmmsnouts 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on wikipedia with Piss Christ, Anti-Semitism, and blackface. I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.
  38. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Wikipedia will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Jdcooper 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Fufthmin 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Lankiveil 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC). This article is about the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere but at the top.
  42. Tbeatty 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images. Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/
  43. Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. AscendedAnathema 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--God of War 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. AlEX 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should wikipedia hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
  46. Kaveh 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. It is fine just like it is now. -- Trollkontroll 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.Philmurray 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. WookMuff I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
  50. Keep it on top. Pyro19 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Should be on top. Aris Katsaris
  52. Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. Maprieto 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Top right AdamSmithee 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... Discus2000 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. Stays on Top For crying out loud, the article is about the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. Avi 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. The article is about the drawings. jni 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. For obvious reasons. (Entheta 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
  58. This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' controversy page. Anyone navigating here should expect to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them. "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Wikipedia would still violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
  59. Keep on Top, for some many reasons already listed above. Skleinjung 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Keep on top for obvious reasons and per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Muslims: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Peyna 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with Piss Christ, which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world. If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group. Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following WP:NPOV we should have nothing to worry about. Peyna 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary. Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces." If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? Guppy313 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. Hitokirishinji 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Wikipedia solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that not POV? I would call that an agenda.
      Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair. Guppy313 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT
    I would call that an assumption. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. The day wikipedia gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. Hitokirishinji 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. Keep on top for reasons described above --Donar Reiskoffer 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. — Dan | talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Keep on top for all the reasons already said. Utopianheaven 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Keep at top. I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. Cal 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. Rama 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. BMF81 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  68. Keep at top. Gérard 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  69. Keep Astrotrain 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. Keep —Aiden 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by cartoons fer chrissakes. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. Leave at the top since it is what the article is about. We should not censor it or "soften it up".--Kalsermar 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. Leave the image at the top. Wikipedia's goal is to make the sum of human knowledge easily available. Putting the image anywhere but at the top is against that single, noble goal. The image may offend some people, and that is unfortunate, but it's placement there is not pointless, is not intended as an insult to Moslems, and helps the article. If a few Moslems choose to take it as an insult, that is unfortunate, but I think I'll be able to sleep at night. MichelleG 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
  74. Keep at top - Puts the entire subject into perspective. Paulb42 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  75. keep at the top the image is the entire point of the article, it should come first. DES (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  76. Keep at top per Peyna. --Aaron 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  77. Keep at top - as per Peyna --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  78. Keep at top for the reasons already said. Kaldari 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  79. Keep at top Timrollpickering 03:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  80. Keep at top just where it should be. Argyrios 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  81. Keep at top. It IS the context of the article. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  82. Keep at top. That's what the article is about. Weregerbil 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  83. Keep at top. That's what the article is about. Nick Fraser 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  84. Keep at top. That's what the article is about. (Re)moving it would be blunt censorship, against the very basics of Wikipedia. 1652186 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. Top. I don't see a better place for the image the article is all about. Besides, I don't believe moving it would satisfy anyone genuinely opposed to the images. The protests did't started because masses in Muslim countries saw the pictures, they started because the caricatures have been drawn in the first place. Neurino 16:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. Top. That's what the article is about. Tbc2 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't care

  1. Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
  4. As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. Homestarmy 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image. User:?chille
  7. We are here to distribute information. It is that simple. The nature of the picture's content does not have any relevance in determining the placement of the picture. If it does- then we have a POV-slanted problem. Follow the Manual of Style. Last time I checked, we have been doing exactly that for years without many problems. ? P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

  1. I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? Poulsen 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) with link from top, and have image below fold. --GeLuxe 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm in favour of GeLuxe's idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. Shen 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive only. Please do not edit it.

Poll 3 (One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed vs. Keep All)

It is enough to have just one cartoon without the image of Mohammed. It doesn't include any insult as claimed and enough to represent the dispute. This might lead to a comprimise and worth to try!

In other words, what is asked in this pool is: Instead of putting a cartoon whcih is found offensive by many, can we put another one without the image of Mohammad, but still give the idea about what is happening (an example: an artist drawing a cartoon of Mohammad -lower right corner of the current cartoon)

So, the previous ones was about should we keep the cartoons, this pool is about what should we post there!

This poll seems loaded to me. Everything about the above introduction is trying to force people into going along with the views of the person who wanted this poll. That is Just having one cartoon without the image of Muhammed. Which would miss the whole point of the cartoons. slamdac 14.22 5th February 2005

No it wouldn't: An artist drawing the cartoon of Mohammad (lower right corner of the current cartoon) is a perfect summary of the contraversy. There is a journalist, we can see what he is doing, we can see his fear because of what he is doing, etc... Please use below section for discussion. Resid Gulerdem 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What happens if this poll goes against you? Are we just going to keep having more and more polls until you get the result you want?user:slamdac 14.40 5th feb 2006(UTC)

I respect the decision made by Wikipedians. It is not about who started a poll, do not personalize the issue. It is about asking opinion of the whole community on an idea. Resid Gulerdem 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't advocate removal of the cartoons, but I do advocate replacement "below the fold". Wikipedia has broken into the top 20 sites on the web, and in all likelihood, many good-faith, non-violent Muslims visit this site everyday to look up information. The "look" of the page in its present form is deeply hurtful to them.
Even if the publishing of these cartoons in WP appears inevitable, the prominence given to them on the page is a matter of judgment on the part of WP editors. The prominence given to them right now - the size even of the image is larger than it originally was - is profoundly hurtful to Muslim visitors. Kindly reconsider. Any polling on this issue is futile, for the same reason that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias among its editorship. -- Peripatetic 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone find it funny that there isn't any indication anywhere when the poll will actaully end? Perhaps when the people who wish to replace the image drum up enough support and tell their friends to register on wikipedia to vote? The decision is overwhelming already. This poll is a waste of our time! Hitokirishinji 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


One Cartoon Without Image of Mohammad Keep all Comments
  1. 216.248.124.3 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikizach I may change, but it is better than keeping the whol pic
  3. What a briliant idea! Resid Gulerdem 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Rajab 11:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) this is the best solution.
  5. [[Nigar 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)]]Keeping even one Cartoon means the same thing as keeping them all
  6. --Chaos 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. MeowKun-- Have some respect! 142.161.115.85 20:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Grocer 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC) This is an event that happened. Wikipedia needs to accurately (fully) cover it. Get mad at the newspaper, not Wikipedia.
  2. Maverick 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill this poll! Babajobu 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Improv 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. --User:slamdac 08.574 February 2006 (UTC) This poll is an attempt to ignore the first poll by people who didn't like the result. How many polls are we going to have until people accept that the result isn't going to change.
  6. KimvdLinde 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (this is not an discussion, but if you want to get a whole string of people to reconfirm thier oposition, you probably can get that)
    You are probably wrong. Because this one is different! What is asked here is: Instead of putting a cartoon whcih is found offensive by many, can we put another one without the image of Mohammad, but still give the idea about what is happening (an example; the artist drawing a cartoon!)
  7. Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. ActiveSelective 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (This has already been discussed several times)
    Never voted though! 216.248.124.210 08:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Rama 08:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. This poll is insane. It obviates the earlier polls. 207.237.21.117 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Voting is fun! Kyaa the Catlord 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Will this ever end? I suppose if people are going to keep reverting this poll in, they might as well see how many people think it's a serious waste of effort. Yaztromo 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately due to WP:3RR I could be blocked if I removed this sorry excuse for a use of an article talk page again since I've already removed it 3 times in the past 24 hours but this just proves my point that some people won't stop until they get their way in the polls and when that repeatedly fails they keep on vandalizing the article. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    We should wait and see what other people think about the idea. Not a big problem, huh? Resid Gulerdem 06:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Terrible idea. Now let's have a poll on whether I'm right or not. — TheKMantalk 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    We should have a poll to close this poll. Rofl. Brilliant! Kyaa the Catlord 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, there already was one...yesterday (result:close). — TheKMantalk 07:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Can anybody tell me why you are so willing to close it. If you do not like, just ignore... That simple. I cannot see a reason for your attitude?
    Focus on the article. Don't question my competence. — TheKMantalk 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. This poll needs to not exist. In any event, I'm for keeping the image as-is. This is yet another attempt to pervert the nature of the image. No, no, no, no, no. This is the fourth poll - the first two were more than enough. Sorry. Also, if this is to be a "real" poll, should be up at the top where it is seen. Titanium Dragon 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. I thought I had already voted on this one. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. I am only voting so that it cannot be said that noone voted, thereby meaning the pool guy wins hehe pool... i could use a pool... its summer in australia right now :) WookMuff 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Well, it's supposedly winter here, but its the hottest Jan. ever recorded. I could use a pool, too. Unfortunately, all I get is a poll, most likely followed by yet-another-poll. Keep the image. I'm terribly sorry if offends you, but my understanding of the issue is improved by its prescence. I suspect this will be true for future scholars as well. I do not believe adhering to any specific religious view is NPOV. Jacie87 10:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Keep the drawings somewhere where those who want to qualify their views on the controversy can find them. But this poll shouldn't have been - see my comments to poll 1 and 2.--Niels Ø 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep and get rid of this poll! NepGrower 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep Again? Are we going to repeat this until we get a "different" result? Keep the original, no need to censor...still! RapaNui 14:45, 5 February 2006 (CET)
  22. Keep All. I think we all can see it's clear that all should be kept, on the top, where it belongs. Two polls was more than enough already. Utopianheaven 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Keep All This is ridiculous. The people have already spoken, twice. Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I would recommend you to consult the intro part above and the discussion below to see the difference between the polls. Resid Gulerdem 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I see what you are trying to do, offer a compromise, and I admire your courage. But haven't Wikipedians already spoken out for one of the poll options twice. I see you have a new option on the table, but it's obvious everyone's going to keep voting for the same one - keeping the cartoon. Why don't we have a poll on no more polling? Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have some hope and strongly trust the common sense of humanity. I cannot and do not want to see that someone insist on a mistake just because he did once before. I believe people will choose the better option if it known to them. Thanks for the kind words... Resid Gulerdem 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I also hope that the two sides can calm this down and not lead us further into this horiffic mess. Out of interest, are you a Muslim, a Westerner, both or neither? Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    A muslim in the West for a long time... This web site [1] might give you more information about my ideas as Mr. Gulen has a strong influence on my ideas. Resid Gulerdem 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Keep All. The article and the whole argument is about the controversial cartoons, not about the ones that just happened to be on the page and didn't upset anyone. It would be like having an article about World War 2 without mentioning the Holocaust, because that topic is just "not pleasant". Cipher Pipe 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    It is enough to put one cartoon, as explained above. That would saffice... No reason to have the whole collection here! Please not that, an ensiclopedia cannot have an insult in an article... Resid Gulerdem 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    First of all, leaving a cartoon there which is not being disputed doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever. The article is about the controversial cartoons. If you want an alternative to having the picture at the top, I'd prefer moving the picture down rather than editing or censoring it. Second of all, the pictures are not an insult. They were never meant to be one. It's a caricature. If I found the image of a clitoris offensive (and there are people who do find it offensive), would you remove it from the clitoris article? Cipher Pipe 15:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Although I agree with Cipher that the article should stay, I can see where the Islamic community is coming from and his WWII comparison doesn't best put the point across. I mean, should we have a picture of a child being abused in the Paedophile article just to illustrate a point? Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    As you said, in such a picture a child would be physically abused. These are cartoons. Drawings. No one is being physically hurt. It's just that some people find these cartoons upsetting. Some might find the topic of the Holocaust disturbing and yet it is mentioned in the WW2 article because an encyclopedia should be, first and foremost, informative. That's the point I was trying to make. Cipher Pipe 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    It is kind of funny to have such a seperation. Sometimes, physical injury is far less important than a mental one. We know that some cartoons are considered as insult by many people and that is important. Should an ensiclopedia include those? The Holocost example is not so relevant. The bottom line is: the information do not hurt people's feelings, and source of the information are the facts. In this case the source of the dispute caused by these cartoons are some (mostly wrong) personal interpretations. We should mention the facts and consequences, do not need to carry all the details of the personal interpretations in the form of cartoons. One, less provocative cartoon would do the job. Resid Gulerdem 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Keep all and punish whoever removed my vote from this the first time around. Vanky 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Homestarmy 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Don't see a point to a picture that doesn't even have controversy over it, it would just be useless information.
  27. Keep all and add new cartoons as they are inspired by the controversy Sommerfeld 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Keep all Snailwalker | talk 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Keep all as already indicated by earlier polls. Weregerbil 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Keep as the previous poll already indicated Tbc2 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Keep all joturner 15:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Keep all —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Keep All This needs to be shown. SomeGod 16:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. Keep all The article is about all of them right, so how can we (and who would do that) pick just one? (Entheta 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
  35. Keep All - just like I voted last time. Kill this poll. Thparkth 16:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Keep All Keep every single bit. If it happened, it happened. It is what it is. Wikipedia is not a body of opinion, it is a body of fact. The past and reality make no comprimises. This the job of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia was never here to make anybody feel better. I'm suprised we are even debating this. I suggest to any of you who are offended by this to stop clicking your way into the hornet's nest just to get stung. Censor yourselves, (don't look, don't click) not the entire encyclopedia. --Psotau 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Keep All I'm not really sure why this poll exists, and I feel a little silly for taking part in it.... Really, if you are looking up the cartoon controversy on Wikipedia, you should have a reasonable expectation to find the controversial cartoons there. It seems to me it's only offensive to people who are looking for a reason to be offended. Coleca 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Keep All I'm voting just to hammer the nail in the coffin. This poll is pointless, we already know the result. Hitokirishinji 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Keep All American media has been seemingly focused solely on the cartoon with the bomb in the turban. The cartoons need to be shown together to prove that not all of them depict Mohammad in a necessarily negative light. BinaryTed 20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Keep them All Most impartial presentation. Avi 20:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Keep All, certainly. Sandstein 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Keep All They're central to this topic, and should be seen. The NASA Oh Eight Three Six Whimper 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Keep All--Donar Reiskoffer 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Keep All and no more polls about it! Valtam 21:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. This poll is preposterous. Kill it. We have two well-factored polls on this page, no poorly thought out pollcruft, please. Babajobu 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    The above comment is from a user who seems to be an anit-Muslim Serb.
    Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --JGGardiner 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Not at all! It is totally different from the ones above and more closer to a comprimise. 216.248.124.3 02:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. However, should the poll stand, my vote is in. --Maverick 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree. The poll at the top is reaching an overwhelming consensus. At some point the Muslims involved will have to grow up and realize they are living in a much, much larger world where everyone's opinions have to be respected and not just their own. --StuffOfInterest 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    What a racist remark. Why don't you grow up and start listening to Muslims who say: it is not just about this image, the image is only the drop that filled the bucket! Even after years and years of Western intrigue (from Western colonialism two centuries ago, to Western armies the killing of 80.000+ Iraqis in the US instigated Iraq war today) they still want to tremple on us? The West already robbed us of everything. They still need the slandering of our hopes and dreams of salvation? When do you grow up!
  4. Kill this poll. It's completely useless. The.valiant.paladin 02:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    This pool and the ones above are totally different from eachother. This one is good for a comprimise! We should wait to see what others to say... 216.248.124.3 02:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. A poll again? I consider this uncivil! You do not respect other polls. Stop it, please. Also, we already discussed the issue. Go and read the archives first. -- ActiveSelective 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    No we didnt discuss this. We discussedd if we keep or delete. This is asking about what we should post there... 216.248.123.92 07:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it has already been discussed: CLICK HERE -- ActiveSelective 08:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    It was not in the form of a pool. Just a short discussion! We should let people vote for it! What is wrong with that? 216.248.124.210 08:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, and it was not in the form of a song either. So then what? After the discussions, the poll, you want us to start writing songs about it? It has been discussed several times. It should have been your job to list all of them and refer to it when you start up this poll. I already helped you with one here. Over and out. -- ActiveSelective 08:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well what can I say, thanks for your help! Everybody has a right to start a pool! You should be respectful to rights of others! You do not have to fill it, nor worry about it, if you choose not to. I strongly believe that this pool is much important than the previous ones. It is critical! 216.248.124.210 08:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    The first poll was about keeping the cartoon. Not about keeping any old image. The majority voted to keep that one specific image. The whole what we should post there... question has already been answered AlEX
  6. This poll is completely unnecessary. I already voted on this issue. How many times will we do this? Until we get a different answer? Thparkth 13:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes it is. In the first two we were deciding if we should post it or where to post. Here we are discussing what to post there. It shouldn't be too hard to comprehend!... 216.248.125.12 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Why didn't anyone tell me we had a pool? I would have brought my suit. Unfortunately its a kiddie pool and sucks. Kyaa the Catlord 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Voting in a pool is hard. The last time I did it, my ballot got soaked! — TheKMantalk 05:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, I corrected the typo!
  8. If you don't get the result you want, are you going to start yet another poll until you do? Yaztromo 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, no! This one is a totally new idea! Resid Gulerdem 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    You didn't answer the question. Again, if your current "totally new idea" doesn't end with the result you're looking for, are you going to continue to come up with "totally new ideas" until you do? This must end somewhere, which is why people keep reverting this poll. Yaztromo 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    My answer to your question would be: Anybody has the right to start a new poll. I would consider to start one, if I would have a briliant idea as this. It should worth, that is my point! Resid Gulerdem 06:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Enough with the stupid polls. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed, only a fool makes a "pool". Kyaa the Catlord 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. why don't we just keep the old poll open for a longer period. Long enough to ride out this controversy. This will kill any need to open a new poll each time somebody is disatisfied with previous poll's outcome. __earth (Talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Because the polls waste space. This one especially. The former polls already decided that wikipedians overwhelmingly felt that we should keep the images as they are including Mohammed's caricature. Kyaa the Catlord 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I do not think so. What we talked about was, should we keep the cartoons there... Resid Gulerdem 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC
    And what cartoon do you think everyone voted to keep? The poll wasn't whether some random cartoon should be retained at the top of the page, but whether the specifically referenced cartoon should be kept at the top of the page. People didn't vote "yes" thinking someone might post a Peanuts cartoon -- they voted to keep the spread of cartoons depicting Mohammed (pbuh) at the top of the page. I don't see how this could be any more specific, and continued polls simply disrespect the results of the existing poll, and thus serve no useful purpose. Yaztromo 07:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    They certainly voted for a cartoon related to the dispute. One cartoon is enough to show the idea behind the dispute though. Peanuts wouldn't be a good choice. Why do not you think about the journalist drawing the picture of Mohammed as another option? That make a lot more sense. And that is exactly the question here! Resid Gulerdem 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please direct me to the image of a cartoonist drawing Muhammed. — TheKMantalk 07:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Please look at the lower right corner of the current cartoon. That is the pic I meant! Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    No, they voted for a specific image -- the one being used. The one being used is necessary for research purposes. Five years from now, after the fury has died down over these cartoons and people get back to living their lives, people doing research on the year 2006 are going to need access to the images to derive proper context. Note that this goes for Islamic scholars as well -- the best way to understand why people are upset is to see the object that is upsetting them. It is through this that understanding is achieved. If you want people are agree with you that these images are blasphemous, then they should be allowed to see them. Some unrelated picture of a cartoonist drawing doesn't achieve this end. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not a picture book, and as such needs content useful to the purpose of research, and not useless diagrams for the sake of a diagram. Yaztromo 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    My point is: Many people (billions of them) thinks that, the image is an insult to their belief. There is no reason to insist on it. The aim of this article is to mention about the controversy. One cartoon should be enough to that end. Resid Gulerdem 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    There is a reason to insist on it. It's called encyclopedic content. The reader should be able to know what the controversy is about. And since the controversy was about the cartoons, the reader should be able to see the cartoons. Period. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, they should see a cartoon. And one cartoon should be enough! We do not need to have a cartoon collection here. Please se the discussion section below the poll. Resid Gulerdem 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Consensus says already we want to keep the image and obviously this the cartoons specifically. I'm fairly sure if people didn't want to keep the image and put a "different picture" they would have voted delete. One more thing, anon, get a real username, you'll do yourself a favor by gaining some credibility. Hitokirishinji 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Kill the poll and impose sanctions against 216. :D Kyaa the Catlord 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    I answered this question above. They were not given an option to choose. What we talked about was, should we keep them there... Resid Gulerdem 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Obliterate. Let get back to focusing on this article. — TheKMantalk 07:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. This poll should not exist. Titanium Dragon 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Enough polls, the majority had already decided to keep the image (of ALL cartoons), let's move on here Sol. v. Oranje 11:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    No they didn't! Resid Gulerdem 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    Well, now we do again and you see the clear result, so you might be happy now(or not). This time the poll is even more clear than the last one! RapaNui 14:57, 5 February 2006 (CET)
    I respect the results. I just wanted to help a voice be heard! The pool is not ended yet though... Resid Gulerdem 14:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Sheesh, not another poll. Don't people get it yet - there appears to be consensus already, let it go. Cal 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll 3 Discussion

I have killed Poll 3 since we've had more than enough of these polls and there was a rough consensus to just kill the poll, especially when all the polls say exactly the same thing. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot decide about it yourself! This poll is nothing to do with the previous ones. 216.248.125.12 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Make peace, not revert war. Kyaa the Catlord 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, please ask these vandals stop reverting the poll. If they do not like, they can just ignore. Let users decide!
My opinion is that the poll is totally unnecessary and evil. But hey, go for it. Kyaa the Catlord 05:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try if I can find a way from these vandals all around!
An important aspect of a democratic process is not just holding an open election (or, in this case, a poll), but to respect the decision, even if it doesn't go your way, and not continually bombard people with endless poll after poll until you get the decision you want. If unsure, apply the following simple test: would you be proposing further polls if you had received your preferred resolution the first time around? Yaztromo 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sucks for you then that Wikipedia is not a Democracy. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim it was. However, the concept of a Straw poll is indeed a democratic process. Yaztromo 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Yaztromo. Anybosy has rights to from a poll. It should worth though.... Resid Gulerdem 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of poll 3. We have to give it a chance. Resid Gulerdem 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think what is missed here is that, the previous poll are different from this one. There is a briliant idea here. The previous ones, as explained at the introduction of the poll was about the existence of the cartoons. Now this time it is about the nature of it. Resid Gulerdem 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that people will keep rephrasing what they want and create new polls until they either get what they want, and when polls don't work... well I assume you've looked at the article history. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I did, but to me the point made quite clear in this poll. In the previoue ones, we decide to have the cartoons, in the first poll. In the second poll we decided where it should be. What we haven't talked about yet is actually the point of this Poll 3. It is exactly asking about, what cartoon should be there. I think it is toatlly different from the prev ones and cannot be considered as 'rephrasing'. Resid Gulerdem 06:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not different. We voted to keep the image as-is, we voted to keep it at the top of the page. No. Bad. Knock this off. This poll is purely unnecessary. And again, a supermajority is showing for "keep the image as is". As it will every time. And if this is to be a "real" poll, it needs to be up at the top. But really, it just needs to not be at all. We already voted on this; we already voted to keep it as-is overwhelmingly. Quit trying to squirm around it and pervert the nature of the article. This image would be misleading anyway, given the image that has spawned the most ire is not even this one. Titanium Dragon 07:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If you agree with me, then you agree that another poll is unnecessary. Considering the results, I would say that the original poll qualifies for Supermajority. The people who voted for keeping the image know what they were voting for -- they voted to keep that specific image at the top of the page. Starting further polls to try to get a different result in either image content or image location doesn't respect the previous poll.

Yes, you can start new polls, but I'm almost to the point where I'll take over for User:Jtkiefer and remove poll 3 myself. Yaztromo 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not a correct argument. They are not asked about the nature of the cartoons. They are asked about existence and placement of them. What we should have in those cartoons was not an option to choose in the poll 1 ot 2. Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a perfectly cogent argument. The original poll didn't ask people if they wanted some random cartoon at the top of the page, but a specific set of cartoons. People weren't confused when they voted, thinking that the intent was to put a Peanuts or Superman cartoon on the page -- they voted for the specific image that is currently being used. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free, just because I can't revert for the next 24 hours +/- doesn't mean that you can't remove this blight from the talk page. All these polls are bordering on becoming WP:Point violations. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let us be more democratic and respectful to other opinions. While we are talking about freedom of speech, we cannot stop discussions we do not like. Resid Gulerdem 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You are being inconsistent. First you state above that you agree with my comment about respecting the democratic process by not having endless poll after poll because you didn't get the result you like, but then you try to use "democracy" as a reason why we should have endless poll after poll. I completely respect your opinion -- but that doesn't mean you're going to get your way, or that you can hijack the process endlessly by starting poll after poll after poll because you don't like the results. Respect goes both ways -- if you want respect, start by respecting the existing decision of the supermajority. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean that there is no need to the poll. What I am saying is, this poll has a totally different idea and worth our consideration. I am not saying that anybody can stary a poll as they wish, necessary or unnecessary... Resid Gulerdem 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I'm allowing to stop me right now is merely trying to gain a certain amount of consensus on the subject of endless polls. I'm still hopeful of engendering understanding that the first result makes this poll unnecessary. Ironically, leaving the poll viewable helps this position at this time, as those who feel it is worthwhile are currently heavily outnumbered by those who disagree. I'm hoping they'll see that and understand why another poll isn't doing them any good. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The artist drawing the cartoon of Mohammad is a perfect summary of the contraversy. There is a journalist, we can see what he is doing, we can see his fear because of what he is doing, etc... An ansiklopedia cannot include an insult to 1.5 billion people's belief, as they claimed. Resid Gulerdem 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But the main image poll clearly decided (82%) that the cartoon should be kept. That is not an ambiguous result. What you are doing here is ignoring that result. I understand that you feel deeply about the issue, but it is obvious that the community consensus is different from your view. You cannot fix the content of this article against community consensus, which is what you are now doing. Where does it say that wikipedia can't include something that has been perceived by many as an insult? Could you please show me that policy? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is the common sense. You cannot write everything down. Can you show me an ensiclopedia that collects pictures which considered as 'insult' by 1.5 billion? Resid Gulerdem 10:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are some example, Resid, and insulting even more people, just verify the Piss Christ, which is by the way way more heavy than a satiric cartoon, and insults christianity (there are more christians on planet). I don't like this example neither, nevertheless, I don't threaten the country of the "artist" or the artist himself, just becuase of this act, neither you will see any global crisis because of that, because I don't FORCE others to think like I do, even I dislike it. RapaNui 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The definition of 'insult' may vary from culture to culture. We shouldn't expect the world behave as Americans. They have different traditions, culture, etc. The editors should consider the differences. You wouldn't prefer to slaughter and eat a caw in India, right? Resid Gulerdem 14:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Danish are not American, neither am I (though South American), don't stereotype. On the other hand the recent attacks on embassies in Syria and Lebanonis far beyond "only insulting" and are being critizised by the total rest of the world (except many muslim countries, where its even applauded). I liked your second sentence VERY much, there you say: "You wouldn't prefer to slaughter and eat a caw in India, right?" and I say... YES!!! Exactly!!! And it's ok, if in muslim world this cartoons are not being edited, this is up to you to decide, BUT...the Cartoons are made in Danmark, and you must take the danish standards to make this analogy work! There you consider do satiric cartoons, and are not being persecuted for.RapaNui 21:30, 5 February 2006 (CET)

Please note that the point is to write an article about controversy. One cartoon is enough to that end as explained above. We are not collecting all cartoons, there is no reason for it. There are already millions of copies of these cartoons everywhere. It is not realistic to think that 10 years later, people cannot see it. Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins do we have permission to delete this poll? or is it seriously considered valid? This thing is entirely pointless and frankly taking up too much space. Hitokirishinji 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This poll is totally unnessary. It seems to me that we are just going to keep having polls and polls because certain people (we know who they are) can't accept that people want to keep the images up. The questions on this poll are very loaded towards getting people to vote with the people who don't like the images. Delete this poll User:slamdac 09.01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look guys: There are couple of things here:

  • I cannot see the reason of your fear?!... If this is not a good idea it will already be rejected.
  • If you think the poll is not necessary, just ignore it, rather than crying out loud: kill it, killl it!
  • It looks to me that you can read and write, but I am not sure if you can understand what you read... The point of this poll is to decide about the nature of the cartoon. The difference from the previous ones are: they were for existence and placement of the cartoons, this one is for 'what cartoon shold be posted': a collection of them, just one of them and which one.
  • There is enough space... That is the last thing you should worry about. Resid Gulerdem 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not fear. It's utter frustration and ending patience with attempts to tilt things away from what already has been decided. I guess you're right, we should vote on the "nature" of the cartoons because everyone who voted before probably were thinking that "cartoons" meant these instead. No, everyone who voted clearly knew that THESE were the cartoons they wanted. It was clear what the "nature of the cartoons" were. And regardless, your poll is already severely loosing so stop this nonsense. Hitokirishinji 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I was right when I say that you probably having hard time to comprehend. In poll 1 nature of the cartoon was not an option. Why is this that hard to see for you? There is another way to look at it: I would like people think if it is necessary to put all those cartoons there. Can an ensiclopedia include a collection of cartoons which are considered to be an insult by billions of people. Isn't that more wise to have one cartoon whcih summarize the phenomena and yet are not considered as an insult by many people. Do not you think these are all valid arguments? Regarding the result: I respect the decision made by Wikipedians. But I would like to see the result! I hope this helps you to stop crying: kill it!. Resid Gulerdem 10:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a heart in the right place, however, you must see though, that one cartoon is not what was in the Danish newspaper. We may as well not show the cartoons at all, rather than just show one. Also, your comments on "billions of people being offended" are unhelpful. It's millions of people might be offended, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who are not offended.Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, almost all leaders considered the cartoons as unacceptible. Some add to that by saying that, the reaction is not acceptible as well. So, I eblieve that the people who are ofended is not only Muslims... Some Christian and Jewish leaders said the cartoons were no good. I can see that it was not only one cartoon, but for the purpose of this article, which is presentation of the dispute, it should be enough. WP article is not a collection of cartoons, right? Resid Gulerdem 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but even with everyone you said, the vast majority of the world (think China, if it helps) are not on either side: neither "offended" or "protecting free speech". This majority simply want Wikipedia to give them all the information it can. We must serve these people, that is our duty as Wikipedians, no matter which side it upsets. To remove the articles would be to remove important information and fly in the face of the idea of an encyclopedia. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, no one here is arguing about whether Jyllands Posten should have published the images or not. To tell the truth, I think they shouldn't have published them. However, since they did publish them and it turned into such a disproportionate (I know, POV) controversy, informative media (Wikipedia included) should re-publish the images in order to inform their audiences about the cause of this controversy. Cipher Pipe 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What I believe is this: As an ensiklopedia, WP should only report the phenomena objectively and need not to have all cartoons. Resid Gulerdem 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Resid, the main image poll resulted in a resounding decision to keep the cartoons in the article. Since when does keep include the option of replace? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the poll! Resid Gulerdem 12:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Why do you feed rgulerdem? He has already banned many times because of vandalism. He is a POV figter and sockpuppetier. (216.248.12*.* seems edits his posts etc. ). And it was clear that poll 1 was about if you want "the" image stay. It was not about if u want "an" image stay. And people said YES I WANT THAT PICTURE IN THE ARTICLE. Now he is just consuming time of community and disturbing. Dont feed him please!!! And this poll is useless. --Robertek 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll 4: Special-case Labelling

Poll attempts to determine support for labelling of this article. (Format of labelling can be changed after poll, if support is indicated; the template immediately above is an example only.)

Support Labelling

Support a special-case labelling of this article, which improves the quality of information and choices available to wikipedia's readers — some of whom might prefer an opportunity to avoid the article's content — without any concession to self-censorship or the reversal of any previous poll decision. (Precedents for special-case treatments at Goatse.cx, Child pornography, Bahá'u'lláh, Autofellatio, Oral sex etc.)

  1. Support — JEREMY 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Can't people be a little more sensitive here? The ones who prefer will be able to see the pics with no problem. Why don't we let the ones who do not want to see them, avoid seeing them? Resid Gulerdem 08:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Wikipedia should be a global cross-cultural site where we all can work together, not a site for showing supremacy or fighting a 'clash of civilization'. Let's respect minorites! Bertilvidet 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support (although my real choice is moving the image to the Publication of the drawings subsection.) Dmaftei 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support per User:Rgulerdem. AucamanTalk 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose labelling

Oppose this unprecedented "special-case label" template, reject the notion that it improves "quality of information and choices available to Wikipedia's readers" in any way. "Precedents" cited are not precedents at all: child pornography is illegal in Florida, where servers are hosted; autofellatio was resolved by Jimbo's fiat, and is unique in that respect; Oral sex has no warning template and included photograph of woman performing oral sex until photo was removed for copyright reasons; et cetera. Much more analagous are Piss Christ or anti-semitism, where no template exists to genuflect before sensibilities of communities who might find the images offensive. No special treatment for any community, and please no further efforts to evade clear consensus of community with further pollcruft.

  1. Gods, please don't start more polls. We can't even get people to bloody follow the consensus gained from the ones we already had... In other words OPPOSE. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. OPPOSE No need for it, if we go thisway we'll be adding special case templates to everything. Plus as stated the poll isn't well formatted and appears to push one answer over the other, and the use of another poll was against consensus it seems.
  3. SPEEDY OPPOSE, per logic. →AzaToth 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. OPPOSE News can censor itself and warn "viewers" all they want. Wikipedia does not, and CANNOT in order to cater toward a truly neutral viewpoint. Plus, polls have repeatedly verified that wiki will not do this. -Moocats 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. STRONG OPPOSE Oppose the template and oppose this poll, this is just another way of weaseling away from clearly expressed community consensus that picture be presented at top of article, as in Piss Christ and so many others. Bottom line: community wants this treated like a normal article. Other must learn to respect community decision. Babajobu 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. STRONGLY OPPOSE This poll is terrible. No one comes to these pages by accident. They shouldn't be surprise to find what they are looking for in the first place! Valtam 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. BORED OPPOSE This dead horse can't take any more beating.--Jbull 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. OPPOSE Well I didn't get a chance to vote in the other polls so here's my chance!!! :-) This content disclaimer idea doesn't make any sense relative to the rest of WikiPedia... again... wikipedia already has a general disclaimer... that really does cover it all! Please do have a look at this proposal for a more general solution though. Netscott 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. OPPOSE For what it's worth from a non-registered user. ;) This is both a bad precedent to set and one I cannot remember seeing a comparable case for in other encyclopedias I have read. Richard 129.244.128.134 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. OPPOSE; Don't set a precedent...
  11. OPPOSE; Personally I wouldn't mind moving the image down alongside the descriptions, and even stating in the preamble that the images are shown below. But the template would be overkill. And I think this poll is counterproductive - it seems to only be hardening attitudes against any change. -- Avenue 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    Your preferred option would be counter to the second poll. The label seemed the only option still available. It will clearly lose, but I disagree it has hardened attitudes. I just think it's too late, because alternative viewpoints have already fled the article in the face of principled opposition. — JEREMY 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    You mean the silent majority of users who would have supported the template have left the page because they are too decent to debate all the soapboxers? I think that's wishful thinking, Jeremy. From the very beginning a supermajority of users plainly rejected the idea that there should be special treatment for any community on Wikipedia, and argued that this article should be treated like any other. The only principle involved is that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information, and doesn't pick particular communities to protect and honor. That's not getting on a soapbox, it's trying to protect the integrity of the project from those who make unreasonable demands on it. Personally, I think that as time has passed and the violence (embassy-burnings, et cetera) has produced more central and salient images from the controversy than the cartoons themselves, it has become more reasonable to move the cartoons lower in the article, to the "Publication of the cartoons" section. Not because Wikipedia must honor religious sensibilities, or because Wikipedia's content disclaimer is not enough and we must provide more warnings in specific articles, but because the cartoons are no longer the central image from the controversy. But I agree with Avenue that the ceaseless efforts to circumvent the polls by censoring in a slightly different way, providing different content disclaimers than were initially suggested by Hipocrite, et cetera, are annoying people and pushing back the time at which people will be ready to explore the idea of moving the image down for the normal reason that another image would be better at the top. Babajobu 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  12. OPPOSE; or else no picture will be left in wikipedia. Even the article itself could be removed because some find it offensive. For those that have missed recent events: censoring information went out of style with the inquisition and the fall of the Berlin wall.Holland Nomen Nescio 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. OPPOSE. Unless images of women driving bicycles also get a warning, as those may be insulting to people in countries where it is illegal for women to drive a bicycle on a public road. Also oppose dumb polls trying to sneak in erosion of freedom of speech. Weregerbil 10:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. STRONGLY OPPOSE. 1652186 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I fear some parties will never accept that concensus was long ago reached. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strongly oppose despite stating that I'd never take part in another one of these idiotic polls again. Stop with the freakin polls. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. oppose. No precedent. I'd prefer moving it down to the section where the images are described, for more conveniant viewing when reading the section. This may also counter vandalism to some degree. Azate 06:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose ...but move the cartoons down. I agree with Azate. --PeR 09:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Do we really need another poll? MiraLuka 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Enough with these silly polls Jdonnis 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose The recentness of events is having too much bearing on the idea of applying a special label. Given time, it will be clear that no special labeling should have been added. For the sake of neutrality and conformity, I oppose.--Metron4 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Jeremy, first of all, if you are trying to conduct another poll, please have a look at how previous polls were formatted. Secondly, the wording of the poll cannot be constructed so as to argue for a particular position. Thirdly, your option of having a "warning" at the top of the article was one of the options in Poll 2, and received little support. Do you have any reason to think people will feel differently now? If not, please don't create another poll for no reason. Babajobu 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reformatted the header, but there is only one question here: label or not; Support or Oppose? — JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
And yes, determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy. Babajobu 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
None of the previous three polls addressed such a label (although quite a lot of people mentioned their support for such an idea in their comments). — JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremygbyrne please see this. Netscott 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... That seems a bit like censorship of my poll suggestion, although I'll assume good faith and trust that you are trying to improve the quality of the information on wikipedia, rather than defending a position for some other purpose. — JEREMY 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, if you want to run a poll, please present options in an NPOV manner without arguing for a particular option, as creators of previous polls managed to do, but you have not. Babajobu 07:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the wikipedia guideline you're referring to. Naturally I have a POV, and I'm voting for my own poll. I'd be happy for you to present a "case for the negative", and to reformat this poll in just about any way you'd like, but I'm not happy for you to simply decide that it's invalid and thus gag the debate. I'm sure you don't want to do that either, however, and I look forward to reaching a win:win compromise over this. — JEREMY 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
About 5 different people told you not to re-create a poll and you did anyway. What's not to get? There is no "win-win", there's you and a few others who want to "protect" people who don't need protecting (I don't see any newspaper editors rioting in the streets) and the other side of the house telling you it's just information (which it is). No warning label is needed for a specific sect of people...or wanted. -Moocats 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a warning on the Bahá'u'lláh page, no? I don't see why this would be any different... --The tooth 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That would perhaps be analagous to the Muhammad article, where the only image of Muhammad is included part way down the page. But if there was an article The Famous Picture of Bahá'u'lláh, you can bet your money the picture would be at the top, just as the cartoons are at the top of the article about the cartoons. Also, FWIW, the arrangement at Bahá'u'lláh was determined by a relatively small group of editors with little community input. Babajobu 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is the "..cartoons CONTROVERSY."Mkaycomputer 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, mea culpa. :) --The tooth 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem just reverted to Jeremy's version. Do not do that while this is still underway, and consensus is clearly against that. Do NOT do that again. NSLE (T+C) 09:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Blocked after second revert on grounds of disruption. NSLE (T+C) 09:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This seems unusual use of administrative blocking powers. The circumstances of Rgulerdem's two edits do not appear to resemble the normal criteria for the "controversial" and thus rarely used disruption block. He was not warned (other than via a post to this talk page three minutes prior to his blocking) and has not been offered the chance to be unblocked should he agree not to reintroduce his changes. I invite you to reconsider your block. — JEREMY 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not used to hear a voice like this here? It is totally surprising to me that someone is talking about some standards... Jeremy, you cannot imagine how many times I am vandalized by some people with admis privillidges... Whatever they do is the rule here! Whoever they call vandal, he sure is! After you are blocked you cannot express yourself and say 'hey, what went wrong?' They either blocked me many times or just deleted my contribution from discussion page set the article itself aside. I almost lost my sympathy and trust to the philosophy behind Wikipedia... Resid Gulerdem 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Why? They've got more warnings about not removing the image than on any other image EVER. They have REAMS of information on the talk page, comments section of the image and archived discussions. It's also of the only edits for that account to have been made aside from a post to a topic that has been apparently archived for at least a week (I've been guilty of that btw :). I think common sense won out over nitpicking rules in vandalisms' favor. -Moocats 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival of poll

I move for a removal to archive of this poll on the basis that it,

  • Is headed for defeat (how long were past polls? It looks like only 2-3 days, could be wrong though)
  • Would be overruled by the previous 3 polls, which I'm positive would be brought up as a (well founded) reason for overrule of this current poll in the unlikely case that it succeeded.

-Moocats 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with qualification not sure how long polls typically run on Wikipedia but regardless... as the votes so far show... nothing is going to change... with that said, archiving this poll would make sense. Netscott 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean deletion, my mistake, changed wording to archive as that's what I meant, oops :) -Moocat
I expect the poll will lose, but why remove it before the case is clarified? Let's give it a couple of days more. — JEREMY 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You are asking something impossible Jeremy! Poll 3 could survive only one night... You are lucky that it has not been vandalized as Poll 3 had 100 times. Some people here do not want to see a different opinion. I think they fear that a better idea which is closer to a comprimise may get approval from majority... It was a nice trial though! Resid Gulerdem 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh, Resid, if you take a look you will notice the both this poll and yours got pwned. They lost. Badly. People voted against them. They didn't like the options you presented. That's what happens when a supermajority votes against you. Babajobu 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why to keep such pages

Is Democracy means to publish anything, where are the wikipedia guidelines to be polite & no personal attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)