Jump to content

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll 3/archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_3/archive&oldid=1081992929"