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. --Thunder12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
FWBOarticle07:03, 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"?Reply
gidonb20:53, 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.Reply
--Tatty21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) One needs to make a personal judgement about how controversial or offensive they might be. THE IMAGE SHOULD BE BIGGER.Reply
Skleinjung21:08, 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.Reply
Phr22:11, 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.Reply
rst20xx22:27, 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.Reply
--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.
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. Dalembert23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
--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. L33th4x0r00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
--Tarawneh00:32, 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.Reply
--Mido00:57, 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.Reply
Zora01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC) The reason for the prohibition on images was prevention of idolatry; no Muslim would be tempted to worship those cartoons.Reply
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). 203.198.237.3003:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Andrewseal05:41, 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.Reply
--Sbatchu06:15, 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.Reply
--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
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. Skittle10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep and in as prominent position as possible. It's the very point of the article. Aris Katsaris
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)Reply
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 Bird12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)
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)Reply
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? corelog14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Avi15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.----Snorklefish15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.Reply
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.Logan113817:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" -- they are the cartoons. Although I would have them "below the fold". --JGGardiner17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Rama17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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! Valtam19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. —Aiden21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 Daniel21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Wikipedia is not censored, period, and displaying this image is absolutely necessary to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article. --Cyde Weys21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. MichelleG22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC).Reply
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.--Kalsermar22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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'. Tristanb22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.--Pharos00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Reasonable discussion requires information. How can one debate the issue without seeing what the issue is about? Coleca01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Soultaco01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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
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 White03:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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
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 Government06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --Bwiki05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --AladdinSE06:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep. To even ask the question is ridiculous. There is no exception to freedom of expression for so-called "religious sensitivities."
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.--OleMurder19:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Gaurav114614:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Neurino15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Wikipedia is not about (self)censoring information. Should people find things offensive, they must be aware that they are not obliged to look at this picture.--Nomen Nescio16:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
'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)
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. GregLondon20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Er, yeah, that's right: Wikipedia requires no funding whatever, it runs entirely on pixie dust. Let's all remember that next time there's a $250,000 fundraiser. I trust you'll make up the shortfall Greg? --bodnotbod01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Keep Let us not forget that this article will be here presumably for years after the controversy has died down. Future readers on both sides of the debate will require access to the images that sparked the uproar in the first place in order to gain somme form of comprehension why it happened. Future Wikipedians will be able to see why a significant part of the world was enraged, or perhaps why future media is leery to publish such images. Yaztromo02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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
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 Gulerdem20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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 Gulerdem23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)
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.
Rustam11:34, 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.Reply
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
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. Hectigo23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Delete04:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
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). Arno04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)
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]
gidonb21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)second choice only, if inclusion here is not possible. see additional remarks at my first choice. first choice is keepReply
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|talk23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --bodnotbod00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Geffb01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Zaslav04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Kouros13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.--agr15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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)
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)Reply
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. Everyking08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --Acooley14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. --Sir4815:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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. Nickj6917:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
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.
Two polls have taken place on this page from February 2nd - 4th. I think it is time to conclude; the votes as such are quite clear and unlikely to change significantly over the next few days. I have moved the actual votes and comments to Poll Results.
Here are a the actual options and votes (important for understanding the following comments):
Poll 1
202 votes for "Have picture in the article (size and placement to be determined)"
26 votes for "Delete"
19 votes for "Move to separate page and link the image"
247 votes total
Poll 2
10 votes for "Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top"
20 votes for "Have picture lower down the article"
86 votes for "Have picture at top of article"
7 votes for "Don't care"
123 votes total
The decision to have the picture in the article is clear, 82% of the votes in poll 1. The decision to have it at the top seems clear too, with 70% of the votes in poll 2.
However, a poll with many options is a difficult thing. We should be looking for a compromise that is acceptable to nearly everyone, rather than the solution favoured by the largest faction. Many voters may have been ready to accept two of the three alternatives in one of the polls, but have voted for only one option, and that option may be exactly the one most strongly oppposed by other voters. The best solution may actually be a compromise that is no-one's favourite option.
If we consider the 79 voters from poll 1 who have failed to take part in poll 2 although they voted for "Have picture in the article" as "Don't care"s, only 43% of the 202 voters insist on having the picture at the top, and that again is only 35% of the 247 voters total.
So, I believe the poll can be concluded in two ways, equally sound and democratic:
Keep picture at top.
Move picture down, with link from top.
Now, who decides...? If we need another poll, please don't start it till someone has thought up a better format for it than the two old polls!
--Niels Ø20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I do note that you voted for "Move picture down" in the poll yourself, and even though there were only 30 votes for that option, with 86 favouring the option of keeping it at the top, you think it's sound to move the picture down on the basis of the poll? That's a bit rich. Lankiveil22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC).Reply
No it is not. As I hint above, multi-option polls raise complicated procedural questions. I think the intention with these two polls was: First we decide whether to have the pictures in the article or not, then (after concluding that we do want them) we decide where. However, the two polls have happened simultaneously, which is a procedural mistake. Very few voters who have voted against having the picture in the article have taken part in poll 2, but it is a fair guess that they don't want it at the top.--Niels Ø20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
The results are clear in both polls. I really don't understand how you can see picking a minority opinion in the second poll as an "acceptable compromise". Even if you connect the two polls you get the same result. Poll 2 had about a 50% participation rate of Poll 1. If we take 50% of the 26 votes for those that wanted to delete the image you get an additional 13 votes for the "not on top" group. That makes it 86:43 = 2:1 for having the image on top. So how on earth would moving the picture down, and going against a 2:1 majority be a compromise? --Denoir21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as one of the 72 who completed the first poll but "abstained " from the second, this is not because I had intended to abstain, it was just because the poll was not laid out sufficiently clearly for it to be obvious that there was two polls. Although you may say this was not very clever on my part, the high rate of "abstentions" suggests that I was not alone . For what it's worth I would have thought it clar that the pic should be at the top. GregLondon22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
For what that is worth, I too think the drawings really should be at the top. But (as I wrote when I voted), I can live with having them further down, too. - Right now, I wish I had voted "top", as that would have given more credibility to my conclusions above. However, my reasons for voting "further down" as I did should be clear from the above. I think the layout of the poll was poor, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions. However, I guess we, for the time being, have to accept that the majority rules "Put them at the top!". I just can't help thinking that a poll with just two alternatives, "top" and "further down with link", might show a different result.--Niels Ø23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is a clear perversion of the polling data. We already had a poll on where to place the image and the result was obvious. Your attempt to rationalize some other decision by pulling in the results of another poll is noted with amusement, and discarded. --Cyde Weys 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Who decided the polling is end!!!. Is that the "free" Encyclopedia???? What is the difference between Britanica and Wikipedia??? That is an imperialist Encyclopedia too. Allahu Ekber(Allah is the Greatest)
Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Voting is evil? I think the discussion has just demonstrated that there are plenty of well-meaning, reasonable people on both sides, including Muslim editors personally very distressed at seeing the image placed in the most prominent position. A little courtesy in slightly shifting the placement of images is no vice, and there is really no great argument that putting it at the top rather than in the body in any way increases the educational content.--Pharos05:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
So, my speculations on how to interpret polls 1 and 2 have been met with some scorn. I accept that, given the polls as they were, there is no alternative but to accept the majority rule for the time being, but I would like to ask your opinions on the following:
A poll with many options is a difficult thing. We should be looking for a compromise that is acceptable to nearly everyone, rather than the solution favoured by the largest faction.
Suppose a choice has to be made between options A, B and C. Suppose 70% prefer A, find B nearly as good as A, but find C absolutely unacceptable. Suppose another 30% prefer C, find B nearly as good as C, but find A absolutely unacceptable. A simple poll will give an impressive majority to option A, but is that the right decision?
Next time, don't start complicated polls till the design of the poll has been approved by a handful of participants having different views on the subject matter! --Niels Ø10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
As for my own views on this subject matter, I think some of the drawings are fun, others are just stupid, while none of them are truly offensive in the Danish context where they were published, as newspaper cartoons are expected to show just one angle on the subject matter, not a balanced view. But it appears that others do take offense, and if we don't have hardcore porn pictures in the articles on pornography at all, why must we have these drawings at the very top of this article?--Niels Ø10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with many of the above statements. I disagree with Niels' interpretation of the poll results. I don't think the votes of the 79 keep voters who didn't vote in the second article should be interpreted as "don't care" votes. They should be interpreted as what they are: no votes. It works that way in every poll or election: if you don't cast your vote, it won't be counted. It won't go to the party that you might have voted for. The reality is that 86 of 123 voters (70%) felt the cartoon needed to be at the top of the article. The second most popular option (lower down) got only 16.3% of the votes. This is a clear result, and it shouldn't be distorted. (For the record: I voted "don't care") AecisMr. Mojo risin'23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply