Talk:Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy

No way is this a speedy delete

It needs an AfD to determine community consensus. The circumstances surrounding her death and the events that followed have been a notable controversy in its own right. It clearly asserts some kind of significance--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if I expanded this further, it may even be eligible for WP:DYK. I'm sure more sources exist than the ones I used here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The only Wikipedia policy that this might violate is WP:NOT#NEWS - and realistically this is the only concern that people who might want this article deleted would have.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also thinking of WP:BLP here. Everything is cited to reliable sources, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And also, I think she was incredibly pretty. In the creation of this article, I observe WP:NPOV whilst only reporting verifiable facts for the family's sake, who must have gone through massive trauma through her death and the further distribution of the photographs. I am sympathetic towards them.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no move. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Nikki Catsouras → 2006 Alton Parkway automobile crash — Or any other title decided upon by discussion. My preference is for any title which does not include her name. This article is not a biography. It has no writing about the life of the young woman in question, whom I strongly doubt had any coverage in secondary sources prior to her tragic death. Rather, it's an article about a car accident and the lawsuit which occurred in its aftermath. Per WP:BIO1E, this article should be retitled to focus on the event rather than the person. —cab (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I know it's not a biography of her life, but does mainly concern her. How about Nikki Catsouras photograph controversy?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm getting sick of seeing "Murder of", "Disappearance of", or "Death of" in article titles about such cases, and think that this may not be such a good idea in the long term. For a murder, how about instead of "Murder of x", have it be "x murder case"? The consensus around 2005 or so was that such cases should be titled by the person's name, not with "x of..." before it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• And therefore I'm basically opposed to a move.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsure, tending to oppose. Where was this previous discussion around 2005? And while encyclopedic considerations of course have priority, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used by those who have chosen to kick this family while they were down by publishing the photos, and become part of the abuse mechanism. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Tragic events make non-notable people become notable. There is no need to add the reason they became notable to the article titles. See Jessica McClure for example. 199.125.109.129 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

drunk?

So why is whether she was drunk still unknown? I'm sure an autopsy was done, no news reported it? From what I know about the story and the sources I found just doing a Google search, she had alcohol in her bloodstream. The story is also a little longer, some background about why she took the car would clear somethings up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.107.174 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, cocaine from the night before. Her own car keys had been taken away, and she was pissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.45.79 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does bring into question the events of that day. When the Catsouras' had called the Orange County Communications Center to report Nicole driving around in her stepfather's Porsche, they advised that she had been drinking. ("Recordings of 911 calls capture the anguish of Nikki's parents - who both told dispatchers she had been drinking.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korrode (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The source above does say this, but the autopsy found traces of cocaine and no alcohol in Nikki Catsouras' body.[1] It is important not to perpetuate the common misconception that this was a drunk driving accident, because there is no indication that this was the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there has been no link posted to the actual coroner's autopsy report, and there has been at least one article from the OC Register (that I've been unable to find) that stated that there was alcohol in Ms. Catsouras' blood stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.108.201 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has to go with the sources. The Orange County Register is a reliable source, and says "Toxicological tests turned up no signs of alcohol in Nikki's system but did turn up scant traces of cocaine metabolites". There is no reason to believe that the OC Register got this aspect of the case wrong. There does not seem to be a full online copy of the autopsy report, but any change to the article would need reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A search of the OC Register website on Catsouras alcohol shows that all of the news stories agree that alcohol did not play a part in the accident. This is one of the common misconceptions about the case, and the Snopes article also rejects the alcohol angle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Photos

Please stop posting links to the photographs. I understand that it can be argued that they are germane to the entry, but I hope that most editors would agree that they are inappropriate for obvious reasons. Wperdue (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Please See Prince Albert Piercing and it's talk page before deciding what's appropriate for everyone else. The discussion on that page is very relevant. 24.18.115.169 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OSE. It doesn't matter what some other article contains as I'm talking about this one. Wperdue (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I agree; posting a link to the photos is inappropriate. If someone really wants to find them, that's what Google is for.fourmajorman (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's hard to find good copies of the full set using Google. BTW, given that the photos were taken in the official duty of a California state employee, we don't even need to invoke fair use (which would be totally applicable) to include them in the article. We don't have to limit ourselves to mere links. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

By your logic Wikipedia might as well not exist. Wikipedia contains no original research by policy so everything here can be found with Google or in a library. One of the pictures ought to be included on the article under fair use. Ideally, the one of her head lopped-off as it's the most notable. --99.199.42.152 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the same situation that was faced when newspapers began reporting on the Danish cartoons controversy: Many Muslims believed that the cartoons should not be shown because they were too controversial, but readers demanded the right to make their own informed judgment (which required them to be able to see the material). The point of the story is not that the poor girl died, the point is that a controversy has arisen around photographs taken of her body. The photographs ARE the story, and not printing them is scholarly flinching. Telling someone that "they are gory" is no more helpful than telling someone they don't need to see the (pretty bland and unfunny) cartoons for themselves because they "offensive". For better or for worse, the relative offensiveness of these pictures is of serious importance to understanding this story. The right to make all public information freely available to all abrogates the right of a minority not to be offended. It's unfortunate that these photos were released in the first place, but by bringing this to public attention Newsweek and the Catsouras have unwittingly moved themselves and the photos into the sphere of public interest. An encyclopedia has the ethical duty to record the entire relevant truth and nothing more. The ethical breech has already occurred and these photos are already in the public record, to ignore them is silly.

Also, "cocaine had recently been ingested by Nicole" is passive and weird. "Nichole ingested" works better. Also, the phrase "the leakage of photographs" sounds weird. "The leaking of photographs" would be more common. "Leakage" implies that the photographs themselves are releasing some sort of fluid, like "leakage of batteries". Gross, especially in context.

Forgot my ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.63 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While an encyclopedia may have an "ethical duty to record the entire relevant truth," I do question whether actually providing where the photos can be found is part of recording the relevant truth. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe, for example, that Encyclopedia Britannica would either a) print the photos itself, or b) say "go here to find them." The photos are fairly easy to find if you want to (as evidenced by their having been in the top ten US Google searches all day yesterday). I think that comparing this to the cartoons controversy is not quite fair; one was potentially offensive to religious beliefs, whereas the other is an exceedingly graphic picture of a corpse. I may be splitting hairs, but I would suggest that different standards of allowing people "to make their own informed judgment" are in play. fourmajorman (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have lots of other things wikipedia has. They suck. Good copies of the photos are NOT easy to find. (full set, full size, etc.) 72.40.45.79 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What legitimate purpose do these photos serve? Are they informative or educational? The content of the photos and all relevant information is explained in the article. I'm not sure where you get the idea that a consensus has been reached on this issue. Wperdue (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I agree. These are just sensationalist photos that have no place in an encyclopedia. WP:BLP applies also because there are living relatives of the victim who clearly would be very affected by this. Also in the case of Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, Jimbo himself removed a link to a murder video citing human dignity in his edit summary: diff. Dr.K. logos 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being tasteless when you suggest that WP:BLP applies. Eeew. Living relatives of the not-really-victim are certainly not affected by the existance of a complete wikipedia article. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I am impressed with your ad-hominem comment and associated sound-effects</sarcasm>. NOT. Typical reaction for one not understanding policies and bent on having their own way. I've seen this type of reaction before. Despite that I will use whatever WP:AGF is left and I will not call you a troll, yet. Dr.K. logos 14:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I really didn't understand the issue until I saw the photos. So yes, they are informative and educational. Personally I think the most disturbing one is the photo of the lady who got stuck with the job of collecting or cleaning the pool of blood after the car was removed. I really feel for her; she's innocent and still able to think. Look, if the photos would bother you too much, it's your choice to not follow the link. Other people deserve to fully understand the controversy. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The photographs fall outside the scope of WP:EL. Nobody is prevented from finding them with a Google search, but it will not be with the direct approval of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agree that the links are inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent and principled comment Ian. I also agree with Cirt. Dr.K. logos 14:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Regardless of how offended some users here may be about these pictures, it is not only NOT against the rules to post such pictures...but REQUIRED by the rules in relation to POV and bias. Repost the pictures back on Wikipedia. And keep your sad comments about personal preferance to yourselves. 58.164.241.39 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

See the above WP:CONSENSUS. The photographs will not be directly linked from Wikipedia because they are against the letter and spirit of WP:EL, and are disrespectful to the relatives of Nikki Catsouras.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a legal issue regarding the photos being released to begin with? I.e. should you be showing or linking to photos the origin of which on the web is being contested in court?Docsavage20 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal rights and wrongs, the photos are widely available on the Internet. The main reason for not showing them is that they are disrespectful to the relatives of Nikki Catsouras.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose someone could poke a hole in that argument, but I'm personally biased against having them included. They're not needed to grasp the concept of why they'd be controversial.Docsavage20 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Accident "video" is really Malware

Someone is using this tragedy to distribute malware. Some of the links for the photos include a further link to the "Crash" viseo, which then invites you to download a YouTube viewer or some such thing.

This is in fact malware. It should be picked up by most anti-virus programs, but then again, who really knows?

Can this info be included in the locked article here? It is well cited by third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.160.153 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTHOWTO issue here. It is fairly common for this type of material to be used to spread viruses, so people should be careful if offered links in e-mails etc. This is probably beyond the scope of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See also - links to unrelated article

What does "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs" article have anything to do with the tragedy of Catsouras family? The 'See also' section should contain articles of very similiar cases, like in the article "Suicide of Megan Meier" has the link to "Suicide of Ryan Halligan". Even "Jacqueline Saburido" has better links to articles such as "Driving while intoxicated" or "Burn injury". I dont see the point. Or at least it could have more links to more related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.21.66 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs entry. The similarity here is the both cases involved graphic video/photographs that were leaked to the internet. If you can find other entries involving accidents or crimes whose images were leaked to the internet, please feel free to link them. Wperdue (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference, because Jacqueline Saburido allowed photos of her disfigured face to be used to raise awareness of drunk driving. In the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs case, graphic content turned up on the Internet after a leak.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to point out that the police said that the accident was not alcohol related. The photos have been on countless forums and message boards with lectures about the evils of drunk driving, but this is an urban legend as the Snopes website points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

It looks like there will be further legal action related to this matter. Unfortunately, the PDF of the court ruling cited at [2] is not working.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The PDF I downloaded does not list the person User:BobStinkyButt is trying to name as the driver. NJA (t/c) 12:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The current citations do not support the statement that Justin Thompson was driving the Honda Civic. Even if this is correct, it fails WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This citation does name Justin Thompson as the driver of the Honda Civic, so it is OK. Please ensure that the citations are matched to what is being said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "An autopsy revealed there were "scant" traces of cocaine in Ms. Catsouras' body, but 0% alcohol" is not used in the Snopes citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the cites. The full text of the 2010 appeal court ruling is available here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CHP officers

Re this edit. The main concern here was consistency with the sourcing. They are described as CHP officers in the cite at [3]. Please cite the description of the men as dispatch supervisors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 2 of source [2] states, "After an internal investigation, the California Highway Patrol identified two dispatchers, Thomas O'Donnell and Aaron Reich as being responsible for the leaked images." Note, the use of the word "dispatchers." California Public Safety Dispatchers are sworn civilian employees, not officers of the law.

Page 3 of the first source mentioned also states the photos "had been leaked by two CHP dispatchers."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.108.201 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there has been confusion because some media reports describe the men as CHP officers. I am not an expert on police departments, so the term dispatcher needed explaining. It is clear that the two men were CHP employees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See also

I'm not going to edit war over the "see also" link to Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. The reason for adding this is that, like the Nikki Catsouras photographs, the Yatzenko video and other material was obtained during the course of a police investigation, and was never intended to end up causing ghoulish fascination on the Internet. This makes it different from beheading videos, which were made as deliberate propaganda by radical Islamic groups. The Nikki Catsouras photos and the Maniacs case (3Guys1Hammer) are both on Encyclopedia Dramatica, although the article does not mention this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Name controversy

After some edit warring over the name, here is a photograph of her grave, with the name as Nikki Catsouras (click on the image for the full size version). While the name Nikki Mayo Catsouras may be on her death certificate, it would run into problems with WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME. I could not find any news coverage on Google with this name, so it would have to stay out of the article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

While the edits of the new user and the IP seemed to be in good faith I have to agree. I made similar comments here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument

I read a couple places that her and her father got into an argument before she took the car because she was using cocaine, why is there no mention of this?Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind, I am reading all sorts of different stories about it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this really a good article?

Here's my point,Nikki Catsouras is just another teen drunk driver,A car crashed in Omaha this year,Into a building and it caught fire. There is no exsisting Wikipedia article on said subject. The only thing that makes this notable,is that they were leaked onto the internet. The Picture of the SUV was all over the news in omaha I will elaborate on this point later