Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 6

''The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 5 | Question 6 | Question 7 ->

Discussion of question 6

 * It doesn't seem "astonishing" to me that an article on Muhammad would contain a few depictions where appropriate. It seems to me that the most logical application of this principle would simply be to not place images of Muhammad all over the place, and to be selective in their usage. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should have images illustrating incidents from the life just as we normally would, and as our readers expect. I am in favour of keeping the top few screens free of such images in this case, as a tactful additional way of minimizing the offence some readers undoubtedly feel on seeing them. Some readers are apparently "astonished" to find that historic Islamic images exist at all, but for them the effect of seeing them is educational, which is supposed to be the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am generally astonished to find a biographical article without depictions of its subject when there are such – there's a reason that the WikiProject Biography template includes a parameter to request an image! I also agree with Johnbod that it is educational for people to find out that others don't see the world the same way they do; do we censor articles on evolution to prevent creationist-raised children from being "astonished" by facts? Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Most sensitive, intelligent readers would expect to find figurative depictions of Muhammad used sparingly, and only where they add to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate. No reasonable person who understands anything about Islam would expect to find this article peppered with figurative depictions of Muhammad "because they look pretty" (to non-Muslims). Most readers would expect us to have more sense than that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the board is considering revisiting the whole "controversial content" resolution. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While many devout Muslims might be offended to see a depiction of Muhammad on Wikipedia, "astonishment" is not an appropriate term for such offense. Wikipedia's habit of including depictions of historic figures will only "astonish" a select group of people who haven't heard of Wikipedia's practice, and then suddenly decide to look at our Muhammad article without having stopped by any other biographical article previously.  That is so improbable a scenario that even if we are to assume that POLA applies as some advocate, it is unreasonable to modify Wikipedia practices on such a basis. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our policy is about spirit, and not letter. Whatever the principle of least astonishment means, it's been developed with this case in mind. It's meant to point out a balance of heat and light. Given the choice between multiple competing explanations that would all shed enough light to understand the topic, we often have a group of people who (in good faith) think we have a moral duty to add the heat, as to hold it back would constitute censorship. Nobody can really explain what the policy should be in the broadest sense. But the Foundation is trying to achieve something very specific on this specific page. This page is known to be a special case and should be treated as such. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tyrannus Mundi, but more to the point, I think that the "principle of least astonishment" is worthless. Least astonishment depends solely on individual prejudices.  Some will be astonished to see a painting, some will be astonished to omit it. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not astonish our readers unnecessarily. And we aren't. At the very least since the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, people in the Islamic world have to be aware that we in the West don't follow their religious rules (no matter how many angry mobs storm embassies after Friday prayers). They may be offended, but they can't possibly be astonished.  Good raise  05:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The heart of POLA is "Avoid causing unnecessary reader distress". No other article has generated this much genuine distress. Some distress is unavoidable-- but most distress COULD be avoided with a simple hatnote.   We have a duty to provide a hidden-images option, so long as it doesn't infringe upon other readers ability to view the article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be "astonished" if an article about such an important figure did not include a picture of him. A good encyclopaedia should have relevant pictures. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This principle can be applied from both point of views. Give the fact that the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad does not allow depiction of religious figures, the followers of this religion could reasonably be expected to be astonished to find depiction being used in the article. However, readers who do not follow this religion could be reasonably expected to be astonished to find that an encyclopedic biography article does not contain any depictions. Keeping both point of views in mind I would not ask for depictions to be removed. However, I would suggest that in order to cater fairly to the interests of all users depictions should be used only in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section. Also the viewpoint of Islam on depictions should be stated in that section and an instructional hatnote should be used. Shariq r82 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Astonishment As noted immediately before me, it's surprising to see calligraphy in an infobox about a person and would be more surprising to not see an image at all. I really can't understand who this hypothetical reader is of this encyclopedia who is surprised by seeing a depiction of Muhammad on the article about Muhammad. Certain Reformed Presbyterians would find it blasphemous to see the depictions on Jesus, but I don't think that anyone takes into account their feelings on the matter and I would imagine that they are accustomed to the fact that others will not censor material intended for a general audience with them in mind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the terms of the foundation resolution, the principle cannot be applied to censor the article. Limiting images used to only the tangential subject of "Depictions" is censorship. They should be used for the purposes they were made, to illustrate events in the subjects life, in his biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember it's the principle of least astonishment, not no astonishment. If more people expect to see an image in a biography than not, then by including images we "astonish" fewer people. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the principle of least astonishment, or any approach which is based on what readers are likely to do or think. Outside of technical implementations for usability design, the principle of least astonishment is just catering to readers biases.  We're writing an encyclopedia, and should do whatever is authoritative, not just what readers will find acceptable.  This doesn't mean we can't make small concessions, for example including particularly controversial images below the fold, but it shouldn't be taken as a requirement.  In general, the report's finding is not policy, and should be treated only as a recommendation, which in this case, we should thoughtfully decline. Ocaasit &#124; c 12:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's little astonishment in going to an article about a person and seeing a depiction of him. It would be more astonishing to see an article devoid of artistic depictions, seeing they're common throughout Wikipedia. --CapitalR (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an illustrated, uncensored encyclopaedia that aims to present a neutral point of view. It would be astonishing for these principles to be suspended for any article or articles, regardless of reason. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing "astonishing" in an article in a Western encyclopedia not abiding by the rules of an Islamic culture.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:41 (UTC)
 * The thing that is astonishing to me is that this is even being considered while objections to other images gets no more attention than someone saying that Wikipedia isn't censored. Again, sorry, but if children can come here and look at nudity, sex, violence and images from other relgions without any sort of "protection", then this subject should be no different. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very easy question to answer; if a reader comes to the English Wikipedia, there is the expectation that articles concerning religion or religious figures will not be subject to that religion's belief system and possible prohibitions. No reasonable person will be astonished to see images of Muhammad in en.wiki's Muhammad article.  I said this very early on in the old debates... we can discuss the topic of deference in Islam without actually having to be deferential. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As many others have said, if there is anything "astonishing" about this article, it's the act of going to an article and not having any images of the subject when there normally would be. And this too is stretching the use of the word "astonishment" a bit much. I don't think "principle of least astonishment" really applies here. Alexius  Horatius  15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is neutral. Thus, it astonishes me that its editors are considering bowing to any special interest, including religious, to create either a special version of an article or a censored article. --Ds13 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the "principle of least astonishment" nor the WMF board's resolution are Wikipedia policies, therefore we are not obligated to obey either of them. Citing them in a content dispute is irrelevant.  With that said, I don't even remotely interpret the board's resolution as a mandate for banning all images of an unveiled Muhammad from Wikipedia.  I interpret it as saying that the board acknowledges that the projects are not censored, but is also sensitive to the fact that some people will be offended by some images, and the board would like to do what it can to mitigate that.  This resolution is a message to the WMF, not directly to editors.  It asks the WMF to come up with a personal image hiding system, where users can specify their own preferences for image filtering without affecting anyone else's ability to see images (which I would likely support if it worked exactly like that).  This resolution does not provide any specific guidance for how editors should choose to use offensive images, for that we use Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some editors approach this question assuming that all Muslims will automatically suffer a hernia and refuse to speak for three days if exposed to a picture of Muhammad. I think the reality is more probably that we would find a diversity in attitudes on this question among Muslims. Many Muslims don't actually believe that images of Muhammad are a problem and many others who do see them as a problem will recognise that there is a legitimate case in favour of the educational use of such images which also merits consideration. I think many Muslims will, on the other hand, be troubled by the working assumption that they are all made out of a sort of emotional rice paper and are completely incapable of considering anyone else's point-of-view. IPs who occasionally post on the talkpage in shouty caps should not be taken as representative, IMO. FormerIP (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we depart from practice in the best and most reputable source, then we astonish the reader. The best and most reputable sources on Muhammad use figurative depictions sparingly, compared to the literature on other religious founders like Jesus and Buddha, and therefore so should we. If the literature on a particular historical person, as a whole, shows less figurative art than the literature on another such person, we should be reflecting that difference. Following sources is what NPOV means, and it is also what POLA means, for people are not unduly surprised if we offer them what they get from the best sources. -- J N  466  19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really?!?! If we depart from practice in the best and most reputable source, then we astonish the reader. That's completely pulled from space, made up on the spot. Nowhere else at Wikipedia is there any such mandate to ape "the best and most reputable source" — which would be, I note, a form of copyright violation. Moreover, WP:ASTONISH is nothing but an opinion essay, not a policy or guideline of English Wikpedia, and Wikimedia Foundation Resolutions have no governing effect here. So this is essentially a whole-cloth creation of an original argument to defend a non-existent policy... Carrite (talk)

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The WMF's principle of least astonishment governs the presence of controversial content, not the absence of controversial content. Arguments made above that readers would find the absence of controversial material astonishing in itself is plainly insensitive to the scales involved. Due weight applies - vastly more people find depictions of Muhammad offensive than the handful of people who claim they would find the absence of depictions of Muhammad offensive. Suggestions that the absence of images would be offensive strikes me as editors trying to make a WP:POINT rather than trying to approach things from as neutral and respectful a direction as possible. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a tool supposed to allow filtering unwanted content. Once this tool is ready, someone should make sure the images of Muhammad are properly hidden when appropriate option is activated. Until the tool is released we have no technical mean to adhere to the WMF resolution on POLA, so it should be disregarded with respect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing a little about Islamic culture I would actually be astonished to find a picture of Mohammed. I might expect some picture in supplementary material but I would generally expect the prevalence of images to mirror that of Islamic material as a whole: not very often. This dies tie with the idea of Undue weight to show many images in this context actually becomes undue weight give the relative obscurity of the sources.--Salix (talk): 12:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I look up an article about a subject, I expect pictures and I would be astonished not to find them. I think every Muslim reader would expect the same from every other article and I also think that all those readers know that Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic law, so they should not be astonished to find images in this particular article. The only way for them to be astonished would be if those who object to such pictures actually believed that Wikipedia shares their objections - and there is no reason why they should believe that. Regards  So Why  13:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as the "Principle of Least Astonishment" at English-Wikipedia. This is a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation, an attempt by them to "manage" content. It has never been adopted as a guideline or policy here. The resolution should be utterly disregarded until properly discussed and adopted (or rejected) through normal channels. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be most astonished to find that an English-language encyclopedia went out of its way to violate its own policies to accomodate the (not proven reasonable) expectations or putative demands of a minority group of readers who may or may not react vastly differently than the majority, depending on the individual. I fervently believe that the tyranny of the majority is a grave threat to any public enterprise; but this is not a situation of imposing wills, this is a situation of providing information in accordance with the very mission of that enterprise. The only thing that would be more astonishing would be if we went out of our way to include the most derisive and intentionally-offensive images we could find (e.g. if we put up an image of Muhammed having sex with a billy goat in the middle of a satanic pentagram while they share a plate of pork chops). Neither of these is an acceptable way to handle the topic.  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The MOS image policy gives some guidance for dealing with images that might offend or shock (or perhaps astonish). "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. For example, using an image of deportees being subjected to selection as the lead image at this version of Holocaust is far preferable to the appropriate images that appear later in the article that show the treatment of the prisoners or corpses from the camps." So while it is possible that one of the images in this article might shock or astonish a large audience segment, such images should be further down the article page. Cloveapple (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The principle should be applied that in articles completely unrelated to Muhammad as well as in relevant articles, depictions should exist for the sole purpose of providing information, not in order to make a statement on an inner-religious dispute. Taking side by veiling such an image would be cause for great astonishment. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The resolution was based on the recommendations of the Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, which included images of Kenny G. as an example of controversial content. The Foundation urged continuing discussion and deployment of technological ways for the reader to hide various images. The principle has been used as an argument both for figurative images, in that readers expect to see the best available representations of the subject of a biography, and against them in that readers know smooth Jazz police discourages images of Kenny and won't expect to see them here. Q: How should the English Wikipedia community interpret the WMF's Principle of Least Astonishment, in regards to issues of images of Kenny in the Kenny G. article? - A: Don't surprise readers with pictures of Kenny in the infobox behind a flame, with a veil on, on a Night Journey, or talking with Gabriel. Instead, show him realistically, playing his Sopranosax, similar to Muhammad in his infobox preaching to his earliest converts on Mount Arafat near Mecca, --Rosenkohl (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is neutral. Thus, it astonishes me that its editors are considering bowing to any special interest, including religious, to create either a special version of an article or a censored article. -- Neozoon  00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jclemens and Ezhiki about Mohhamed images, but the principle of "least astonishing" is a typical invention by people who do not know how to make an effective presentation of educational materials. "content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain." ??? First of all, if a reader does not know much about a subject (speaking in general), he does not know what to expect. More important, if you want to really bring attention of a reader, you must "astonish" him with something he does not know from the very beginning of an article. This applies to all scientific presentations, grant proposals, political speeches, and yes, to any educational writings addressed to general public (like in wikipedia). That is what Foundation needs to realize. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see a bit of what this is about but what's the point of having an encyclopaedia if people are only going to only read what they expect to read? There might be something that can be developed here but it requires a lot more thought. Straightforward support for self censorship would cover most problems like this.Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the infobox has a calligraphic symbol and there is no hatnote about picture opt-out, it would be probably be astonishing to the reader of Islamic faith to encounter depictions further down the page. More astonishing, actually, than if the article started with an unveiled depiction right away--the Christian, western bias of WP is probably widely known, and I doubt that many Muslims obtain their knowledge about Muhammad from Wikipedia anyway. What should be checked instead is the set of redirects to the article--Is it possible that someone does not want to navigate to Muhammad but is redirected there, and then astonished by the offending picture? --Pgallert (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Astonishment has nothing to do with it. If people come to an article willingly, they can expect to see images of the article's subject. Unless, of course, we're going to expurgate all photographs of human genitalia, female breasts, and anything else a particular group happens to find offensive. I'm barely comfortable with the hatnote, to be honest. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest. People visiting Wiki should expect to see an accurate representation of all views, unmoderated by Wiki
 * First, it is censorship to include images simply to be WP:POINTy in that wikipedia is not censored. Using images explicitly because we are trying to stick it to those who want censorship is just as bad as removing an image because of censorship.  Second, editorial decisions should be the rationale for inclusion/exclusion.  Does it make editorial sense?  Is it educational?  Is it pertinent?  If so, then they should be included.  If it is included simply to make a POINT, then no.  Part of the editorial process IS CENSORSHIP---and that's true with any article.  Do the needs of including the information/image outweigh the cost of doing so?  Part of the cost is offending others, that is a legitimate editorial consideration that has to be weighed with every decision. Third, when we say "Wikipedia is not censored" that means by the foudnation/Jimbo Wales/some outside source---it does not mean that we blindly allow any rumor, piece of trivia, slander, bias etc to be included in an article.  We evaluate the reliability and need for inclusion.  Is it objective, NPOV, weighted, etc?  Such should be done with images.  Is it needed?  Is it in the right place?  Does it serve a valid editorial reason?  If yes, then include.  If no, then "NOTCENSOR" is not a reason to include.  The flipside to appealing to NOTCENSOR is that it encourages censorship via the inclusion of controversial material.  Whenever the editorial decision making process is overruled by a principle to include/exclude material, we are encountering censorship.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Foundation's mealy-mouthed attempt to satisfy everybody is pretty much irrelevant here. We shouldn't expect anybody to be surprised to learn that the rest of the planet does not follow the strictures of some subsets of one specific religious tradition, however powerful and militant such subsets may be. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Cloveapple's comment. Our purpose here as an encyclopedia is to inform, not to shock. I am concerned by some of the other comments here, by editors who seem to feel that our purpose is to prominently display images as a way of "forcing" readers to accept a certain presentation. I strongly disagree with this approach, because that's not what Wikipedia is about. We're not trying to force anyone to accept anything, we're not trying to push a political or ideological agenda. Our goal is simply to present information in a neutral way. If there's a way to present all appropriate information in a balanced fashion, then we are doing our job. In the case of the Muhammad article, I don't think anyone is arguing to remove images of Muhammad or to deface them in any way, we are just discussing the best way to present the information. I would argue that the "Principle of Least Astonishment" in this case would be best served by putting a non-controversial image in the lead infobox (such as calligraphy), and then other figurative depictions of Muhammad can be placed elsewhere on the project, such as farther down the page, and at the Depictions of Muhammad article. That way, those readers who are genuinely interested in the topic still have full access to the information, but we don't force it on everyone visiting the article. --Elonka 13:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There should not be any exception for this particular article. It should be treated like any other biographical article and illustrated where appropriate (including by images of the subject). It is irrelevant if someone is astonished or not. Ruslik_ Zero 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one can rightfully be astonished that an English language wikipedia would have pictures of historical figures including religious figures. They might be astonished if the arabic language wikipedia has such pictures.Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't answer the front door naked even though my home is NOT CENSORED. I don't wear a bikini to church, even though bikinis are normal in the community (less-so for men). The presentation of an article or a person within a community or an encyclopedia varies beyond what is legal. There is a place for images of Muhammad on Wikipedia, and just as I believe my naked body doesn't belong behind the front door when it's about to open, images of Muhammad do not belong behind the front-door article for Muslim readers and editors. Let them go looking for it same as everything else.
 * Readers of the article don't expect Wikipedia to be taking such a strong deliberate stance to offend so many readers. I have no problems with images of (I keep having trouble spelling Mr M's name) his image, but it's too far across the line that Wikipedia in general is trying to be deliberately offensive if the images are on the front door article. Just how incredibly large does a petition need to be before we recognize our own demographics are excluding Wikipedias expansion ? It's simple, a large encyclopedia, or a smaller blog ?
 * We are a bunch of beachgoing teenagers in bikinis who are stumbling into church and not knowing what is the problem. Penyulap  ☏  15:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not a bunch of bikini-clad teenagers in church. "They" are a bunch of conservative church-goers who've gone to the beach in a typical western country and been outraged that people are wearing bikinis instead of neck-to-knee costumes. We might tell visitors to our (generic western culture) country that we are fairly liberal about such things, but don't put signs up at every beach warning people that they might see a bit of skin. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Including an image of Muhammad in an encyclopedia article about Muhammad is in no way astonishing. It is perfectly sensible in the context of the article. Thom2002 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many illustrations, especially about events in the life, is a bit like proselytizing. Neotarf (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. If Wikipedia policies and guidelines, applied to improve the encyclopedia through reasonable and open minded discussion and consensus by good faith editors, lead to astonishingly unencyclopedic articles, those policies and guidelines need to be fixed, again through reasonable and open minded discussion and consensus by good faith editors. It is not acceptable for the WMF or anyone else to bypass that process by identifying problems and imposing solutions by fiat. Such dictats carry no weight with me, and I encourage other editors to respond to them similarly. Geometry guy 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * dictats? We need to start tattooing genitals now? "Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day"? PuppyOnTheRadio   talk  00:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * diktats actually (or possibly "dicta"), but thanks for paying attention... Geometry guy 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...a harsh penalty... imposed upon a defeated party by the victor... Well yes, it would be. PuppyOnTheRadio   talk  01:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow everyone to temporarily hide images in a particular article, similar to self-hiding lists and templates. There are however too many warnings already to warrant additional hatnotes on each subject that could be deemed controversial by some. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I interpret the WMF principle the same way re the Muhammad article as I do re anywhere else: as confused and unhelpful. Astonishment is value-neutral; it can be a perfectly positive thing in many contexts, and encyclopedia articles are far from exempt. If we encyclopedia-builders are doing our job, we damn well should be astonishing our readership frequently, not spoon-feeding them carefully measured doses of what they already expect to find. Will some readers be offended when that happens? No doubt. The closed-minded among them presumably will leave in a huff, but the rest just might be jolted into discovering that a whole world exists beyond their preconceived notions. Aren't those readers the ones we are writing our articles for? Isn't enlightening the world at least a small part of what Wikipedia is all about? Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the dictats of a minority somewhere in the world demand that we break our own rules such as WP:NOTCENSORED, and we comply, where does that end? More than anywhere else, this is a place we must remain resolute. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most English-speaking individuals visiting this encyclopedia would be more surprised by a lack of images than the other way around. JHS nl (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this 'principle' is useful, because as the question notes it can be applied either way. Some people would be astonished to find figurative depictions of Muhammad in the article; others would be astonished to find them not included. Our readers are diverse and have wildly different expectations, and we can't ever satisfy them all. As such, I think the question of 'astonishment' is a red herring. We should instead be asking: what's most appropriate for this article? Does the informative/illustrative value of the Muhammad images outweigh their potential to offend the reader and provoke controversy? What would be the best way of upholding NPOV? Those are the pertinent questions, not the vague and unanswerable issue of 'astonishment'. Robofish (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation made a very bad decision here with several unintended consequences. As we can see in this RfC, the thing that astonishes the least is whatever agrees with the POV of the person invoking this principle, and the most astonishing thing possible is someone not agreeing with the POV of the person invoking this principle. This needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that makes it clear that we are talking about the astonishment of the average visitor, not of the editor who is fighting for his content. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While there have been plenty of depictions of Jesus over the millennia, they were once destroyed in Byzantium during an iconoclastic upheaval. The iconoclasts eventually lost and icons were restored. Having said that, moving pictures (known today as "films") portrayed Jesus until the 1950s or so, only from the back. Then some studio showed the actor's face, the world didn't end, and all later portrayals showed him like anyone else. Student7 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Including these images sends a clear message that this article is written by non-Muslims for non-Muslims. I find that astonishing in an encyclopedia that proclaims itself NPOV and invites everyone to edit.--agr (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the "principle of least astonishment" is that it forces us to get inside the heads of the readers in an aggregate sense. We can all agree that readers who look up Apple are going to be surprised to see images of penises. But will readers, in aggregate, be surprised to see unveiled depictions of Muhammad at Muhammad? Some may be, but readers are diverse, and no matter what we put in this article, somebody is going to be surprised. I believe the majority of readers will not be - in fact, I think even readers who are offended are usually not surprised, as many Internet resources on Mohammed publish such images. Dcoetzee 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more astonished to find no pictures. But this whole "least atonishment"-thing is rubbish. Just a fig leaf for censorship. Weissbier (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No picture=astonishing for most readers. Picture depicting face=astonishing for most Muslim readers. M's name in calligraphy=not astonishing for most readers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be astonished to see no image on the Muhammad article, given that we have images on every other biography. In saying that, however, I also agree with Dcoetzee above in that the decision was problematic in that you cannot know how "astonished" someone will be for anyone other than yourself or others who have stated how astonished they are. The only way to know is to poll the population at large, and we are not about to base or content purely based on popular opinion (although it does certainly play a role, but not the entire role).--New questions? 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an English Wikipedia, everyone would be astonished to find the slightest trace of censorship here. - Richiez (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am, as a reader of the Wikipedia, astonished to see calligraphy in place of a figurative image at the top of an article written about a notable person. I don't think we're ever going to satisfy everyone, and a good balance must be struck which keeps those seeking information satisfied, as that's what Wikipedia is all about. Amarand (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished we're even having this discussion. In an article about Muhammad, the lead image should be of Muhammad, not of Islamic calligraphy. Of course, we should explain that the image was not contemporary, but I hear one can put captions on photos now. Having calligraphy in the lead would be astonishing indeed, I'd likely think I typo'd which article I wanted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)