Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

Inclusion of autopsy image

I've temporarily removed the image of Ngatikaura Ngati from the article, as, having read the comments of Dr. Kiro, I think it is worth just checking to see if consensus is to include the image first. The concern raised by Dr Kiro, and which I think is worth consideration, is that continued use of the images may be seen as a form of abuse of Ngatikaura Ngati, and privacy concerns would suggest that showing a photo of a severly abused dead child is a problem. I'm not sure if we should accept that view - I have a certain sympathy to it, but I'm also inclined to consider that this article is specifically about the images, and therefore there is cause to include one of them - but it seems complex enough to warrant seeing where consensus lies. (Given that a child is involved, my feeling was that we needed to seek consensus to include, rather than consensus to exclude - hence my removal pior to discussion). - Bilby (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of image, per WP:NOTCENSORED. To ensure a useful discussion (and to save editors reviewing the recent article history to find the image) we're referring to File:Ngatikaura Ngati autopsy rear.jpg. I propose to reinclude it within 7 days, i.e. before it's automatically deleted as being an orphan. If we don't have enough views here to determine consensus within a few days, maybe an RFC should be posted. -- Trevj (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as I know it will come up again, I don't think that the image should be removed from the article simply because some people may find it offensive. If there is an argument for removing the article, I see it as coming down to respect for the privacy of the dead child, which was the issue that was being discussed more widely in regard to the images, contrasted against the value of showing an example of the images being discussed. There is a good argument for including the image, but WP:CENSORED isn't necessarily relevant unless someone wants to argue for excluding it because of simple distate or offensiveness. And seven days seems like a fair enough time span to me. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm unsure what policy-based reason there is for not including the image. The poor child is dead, and the perpetrators have (presumably) served their time, with their behaviour now hopefully being monitored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on the free sharing of knowledge. If the article itself is to be the subject of a deletion discussion, then that's a separate matter to that of an image used within it. Incidentally, the inclusion of the image was prompted by a question at the Teahouse. -- Trevj (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as the main contributor to the article I don't see that it adds anything helpful to the article. We don't need to link to the images to talk about them. Notice the complete lack of images in Shock site based on extensive discussion, for example. Further, I believe in coming so soon after the this discussion that the addition is WP:POINTY with the intent to shock. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The intent is not to shock, but to inform. Neither the creation of the article nor the shocking nature of the image is my doing. The image was added because we're here to build an encyclopedia, and I find it inexplicable that an appropriate image should not accompany the article. Please assume good faith: it would be appreeciated if you could please reconsider your POINTy/shock opinion. This discussion now demonstrates that it's contentious whether this particular image in its full extent is the appropriate one to illustrate the topic, and this is acknowledged. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've also commented out the info box, because it added as little to the article as the image. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would rather not display any images of a severely-beaten child's corpse on Wikipedia, at least not at the top of an article page where it is visible by default. But that's a personal preference and I realize acutely that existing policy does not support my position. Values aside, though, I don't believe that the image linked above should be included in this page. Consider that this is the very image that was subsequently featured on a gore porn site. Wikipedia:Offensive_material provides us some editorial discretion here: "Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not prefer the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials." If we must include a shocking image, perhaps we could substitute the shot of the front of the child's torso, which conveys the appalling nature of the crime but carries less baggage? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit to not reading every single word in either the article or the cited sources, and didn't notice that the image had been used in a pornographic context. The particular image was chosen because it seemed to me to be the most obvious one available, and for no other reason.

Regarding the contentious shock value of the image:

1. The lower buttocks could be cropped, to detract from any inferred pornographic value
2. If cropped, the sore which is the "size of a man's hand" should be retained in the overall image, because it directly illustrates sourced content within the article
3. If (a slightly cropped version of) the current image is deemed too shocking for the lead, perhaps it could be included later in the article, with a crop of the left arm, shoulder and upper back (illustrating marks and bruising only) used in the lead

I'd like to take this opportunity to confirm that as a human and a father, I find the event and the image to be sickening. Similar emotional responses by other editors are not justifications founded in policy for not including the image. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I see that my point of view does not currently have consensus. However, I find that the policy-based arguments for not including the image are weak. I'm therefore notifying members of the appropriate WikiProjects, in order to seek wider input. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)