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)

• I find Trevj's well-reasoned suggestion in compromise (e.g. a cropped version in the article's lead) to be perfectly reasonable, but only if the full image is included further below. The caption could say something on the order of "Cropped view of the controversial autopsy photo, shown in full below." Technically, that would not be a "disclaimer", per se, nor is it apologist, nor are you making a decision for everybody else as to whether or not it is appropriate for them to see the image. If one feels that they've seen enough, then they have received fair warning, and can click away. See my somewhat lengthy diatribe below (there, you've been warned!) Grollτech (talk) 20:16, 6 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)
• Exclude While WP:NOTCENSORED would allow the use of this image, on ethical grounds I can't support its inclusion in any form. As the 'Life and Death' section does an adequate job of describing what the image looks like, publishing the image here - even in good faith - risks violating the dignity of the child for essentially no gain. People who want to know what the image looks like can Google it. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, When the Lynching of Jesse Washington page was on the Main Page recently, anyone clicking onto that article was/is forced to see an explicit image of his corpse. I don't believe that's right no matter what the wiki rules say. There is also no age restriction or warning before you see the photo, which at the very least is the responsible thing to do. It's not as if these type of images are commonly used in current media, newspapers, etc. Also don't believe it can satisfy Wikipedia:Offensive material in regards to being treated in an encyclopedic manner Rudolph89^talk 10:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're not talking about a Featured Image or the Main Page here, "We include the photograph not "because we can", but because it illustrates the subject in an encyclopedic manner." -- Trevj (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> I know I'll regret this, but I'll bite. "... anyone clicking onto that article was/is forced to see an explicit image of his corpse. Applying that argument to this particular article:

"Hmmm, I wonder what I'll see when I click on an article entitled 'Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati'..." <click>... (wait for it)...

"OH MY GAWD! Nobody told me I'd see autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati!"

No one who clicks into this article could legitimately claim that they were "forced to see" anything, nor could they claim that they were not given adequate warning, especially with the compromise suggested above. Grollτech (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of image, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Agree completely with User:Trevj. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I've now included quotes of the contrasting Kiro/McCroskie viewpoints in the article. -- Trevj (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how they're meant to contrast. One is the comment of a medical professional in a national government-appointed role as guardian of children. One is the comment of a political lobbyist. If you want to compare quotes, far better to compare different Children’s Commissioner's positions, which is the core of the issue. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd not spotted the McClay quote. I agree that it's an improvement, so thanks for the replacement. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Support I'll apologize in advance for the length of the post I'm about to write, but at the outset, I know already that it's gonna be a doozy.

"The seeker after truth, does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he scrutinizes, measures, and verifies ... The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow."

—  Abu Ali al-Hassan Ibn al-Hussain
Ibn al-Haytham (965–c. 1040),
"The father of the scientific method"

I've had that quote on my user page for some time, mainly because I thought it to be a cool quote. This little bit of "wiki-heresy" speaks to the essay (not policy, mind you) Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. For some reason, however, this discussion – nay, that photograph – brought this concept into sharp focus for me over the last 24 hours, as I set out to seek the truth for myself, and to scrutinize, measure, verify.... What follows is the result of my somewhat hasty attempt to try and capture and summarize the issues presented by this can of worms, and to try to address each in turntopic.

Privacy / Dignity / Fairness concerns

1. The news story in which New Zealand's TV One (NZTV) broadcast the boy's autopsy photographs included Dr. Kiro, commenting that the public did not need to see these "graphic images to show them how badly damaged this child was", and that the boy deserved privacy.
2. In Dr. Kiro's complaint to New Zealand's Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) against NZTV, she added that there was a moral obligation to protect his privacy.
3. When The BSA pointed out that the "privacy" and "fairness" standards did not apply to deceased individuals, they could have stopped there. Nevertheless, they added that, "The Authority also observes that TVNZ adhered to the stipulations made by the High Court judge who allowed the broadcaster to film the photos. The child’s face and genitals were not shown and, in this respect, the Authority finds that TVNZ exercised care and discretion in order to preserve the child’s dignity." I have confidence that Wikipedia can do the same.
4. The BSA also noted that, "the only family members in court who opposed the photos being allowed into the public realm were those found guilty of wilful ill-treatment, manslaughter and failing to provide medical treatment for the child." Their concern was not for the child that they had just killed – they only thought of themselves, just as they had done all along.
5. To be blunt, the BSA's decision was correct. The boy doesn't "deserve" privacy even a fraction as much as he deserved to live happy and free from abuse. This Wikipedia article doesn't even begin to tell this child's story. If you read no other source references, please read the 2007 New Zealand Herald article entitled "From happiness to hell". From that article, we learn that:
   1. The child has already suffered the greatest "indignity" at the hands of "the system", which ripped him from a loving home and returned him to his birth mother, who sought to regain custody solely because she feared losing the welfare assistance funds which she had illegally been collecting for three years.
   2. The child has already suffered the indignity of not understanding why he was now living with strangers and their four other children, including a newborn, speaking a language he didn't understand, and being forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor without blankets... it's no wonder that this previously potty-trained child began wetting himself again. It's a natural stress response at his age.
   3. The child has already suffered the indignity of the now regular beatings after he wets himself, or for playing a game wrong, or failing to say "yes, mum", or one time, for failing "to jump like a frog" at his parent's command.
   4. The child has already suffered the indignity of the last 24 hours of his life, when he poo'd his pants, and out came the baseball bat. Being beaten so badly, he was unable to get out of bed the next time, so he got the bat again. And yet again.
6. So now I ask, which is the greater indignity that Wikipedia can do to this boy – show the world what happened to him in a dignified and respectful way, or leave that important responsibility to the "porn sites"?

Obscenity / Pornography / Good Taste / Decency / Gratuitous / Voyeuristic

1. Wikipedia:Offensive material, aka WP:F***
2. Ah, there's nothing like some great, inflammatory words like "obscenity" and "pornography" to polarize an issue. Then, for good measure, attach those labels to the very people who are trying to prevent a recurrence of this despicable horror. What the hell, all in, don't stop there: let's call them "show-offs" or voyeurs, or best of all, insinuate that they're pushing child porn! Inflammatory? Ooh yeah, we're cooking with gas, now! Gasoline, that is.
3. In the legal sense, There is nothing obscene or pornographic about showing a 3-year old's buttocks, especially not this one's, in these circumstances, in this article. One need not go to Wikipedia to get a photo of a toddler's ass – I'm sure Google can handle that search a thousand times over.
4. I understand that there are quite a few messed-up pedophiles out there, and far fewer necrophiliacs, but pedophile necrophiliacs? Are we really concerned that showing such a photo might entice someone who wouldn't otherwise harm a child to suddenly pick up a new hobby because of that photo? Really?
5. That one person (or even many) considers something to be "obscene" or "pornographic" is not the basis for how the courts define obscenity. That is well-documented, so I won't bother to elaborate further (don't believe me? Try seeking the truth).
6. Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper, especially when it is obviously trying to boost its own revenue through sensationalism.
   1. When a newspaper article publishes unsubstantiated accusations, one's first reaction should be skepticism for failing to allow verification (WP:VERIFY).
   2. When that same article is creatively vague enough in its insinuations, yet lacks a direct accusation, one should recognize that they are treading on thin ice. The article danced around it, but it fell short of saying that the child's image was used in a sexual context.
   3. The "porn" website in question was given that label by the news media to sell newspapers. Such sites are more appropriately called "shock sites". Oftentimes, they do not restrict the posting of user-provided content, and thus oftentimes contain X-rated imagery. Heck, even Wikipedia hosts X-rated photos! While shock sites might operate "very close to the line", they tend to be very adept at not crossing it by allowing illegal imagery such as child porn or necrophilia.
   4. Can someone please show me a reputable source or police agency that says that this image was used as child pornography? Go ahead, I'll wait while you look it up....
   5. Using their own skill at not crossing the line, the news article eventually gets around to a statement that the website "... also runs caption competitions encouraging readers to make fun of people who have died violent deaths." Oh, ok, now we get to the real context in which the photo was used.
   6. Offensive? Of course. Used in that context, such irreverence to the dead is certainly "offensive" to most everyone. But is it obscene? No. The courts have been explicitly clear on that point, as the Supreme Court made clear in Snyder v. Phelps (more on that below).
7. This whole argument about obscenity is moot, because even if the photos do appear on a porn website as alleged:
   1. the photo itself is not porn, and
   2. this Wikipedia article is not intending to use the image in an obscene manner, but rather, as encyclopedias oft attempt to do, to educate and inform. Possibly, in so doing, it might even save another child's life. It's that powerful.
8. As the BSA stated, "The Authority acknowledges that the autopsy images would have been distressing to some viewers. However, they conveyed the grim reality of child abuse in the context of an item which discussed a silent protest against child abuse organised by anti-violence campaigners."

Censorship / First Amendment Free Speech concerns

1. I'll let WP:NOTCENSORED speak for itself, except to say that:
2. Even offensive speech is protected speech. See Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S.__, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011), which instantly springs to mind regarding respecting the dignity of the deceased.

Public Interest

1. In her complaint, Dr. Kiro said that, despite the High Court judge’s ruling, "it was questionable whether publication of autopsy photographs of a young child beaten to death could ever be in the public interest."
2. Ask yourself this simple "what if" question: What if that boy's parents, before that fateful day, had seen an image like this, and was told, "this is how your child might end up if you reach for that baseball bat", do you think there's even a slight chance that they might have paused before grabbing that bat? Sadly enough, I suspect that Ngatikaura's parents were incapable of thought, but another parent might just have that little flicker of humanity to remember this lesson, and stop themselves.
3. The High Court judge, when he allowed TVNZ to film the autopsy photographs said that he was releasing them “so that they may give pause to those people who choose to ignore that their family members are being hurt.”
4. The TV broadcaster stated that the High Court judge had not made any stipulations in regard to public interest in showing the photographs, only that certain photographs must not be shown to preserve the child’s dignity. It argued that the images illustrated “precisely what is happening to our children”, and that "although they were not easy to see, that did not mean they should not be shown" (emphasis added).
5. In what ways can Wikipedia's showing this photo be a detriment or harm the public interest? None that I can think of, unless that interest includes a preference for ignorant bliss – one may instead experience a momentary discomfort, followed perhaps by the realization that for some, the world really can be a scary place, and isn't all about lemon drops and bubblegum kisses. Oh wait, sorry, that's another benefit... nope, none.
6. But there's yet another benefit to the public interest. Maybe someone will see that powerful image, and it will cause them to stand up for what's right. It had that effect on Trevj, and it had that effect on me, even though I don't have or intend to have children.
7. To me, it would appear that Dr. Kiro failed to grasp her role as Child Commissioner, for with this issue, she seems to have failed to even grasp the concept of "the public interest" as it relates to ensuring the well-being of children within her country. Exactly whose life did she think she would save when she took the "privacy" stance? How could she prioritize an already-dead child's "right to privacy" as a greater public interest than even the remotest possibility of saving the lives of other children who might meet the same fate?

To me, that is the definition of obscenity.

And so, I'm going to WP:Be bold and introduce a new argument which I have yet to see mentioned on this page:

Fair Use vs. Public Domain?

Returning to one of the quotes from above,

"the only family members in court who opposed the photos being allowed into the public realm were those found guilty of wilful ill-treatment, manslaughter and failing to provide medical treatment for the child." (emphasis added)

1. A claim of "Fair Use" applies to images in which somebody else has a legitimate and valid claim of copyright. These images can have no such claim, because the judge released them into the Public Domain"public realm".
   1. News organizations always use a blanket claim copyright of every work they publish, even those that are in the Public Domain. Remember, any schmoe can claim copyright – being entitled to actual copyright is another matter altogether. TV One can't legitimately claim copyright in this case, because their video roll merely contains faithful reproductions of works already in the public domain realm.
   2. The shock-porn websites can't legitimately claim copyright -- the DMCA complaint letter to Google proves that much, as both websites are still displaying the images.
2. Unless someone can provide a solid legal argument to explain why this photograph is not in the Public Domain, it seems perfectly reasonable and proper for me to correct the licensing on the photograph's description page so as to accurately reflect its correct status.
   1. That will "stop the clock" on the 7-day countdown for removal of unused images that claim a "Fair Use" exemption.
   2. Building consensus takes time and thoughtful discussion – not knee-jerk reactions made while a shotgun is pointing at one's head.
   3. Hopefully this will allow cooler heads to prevail, so that a reasonable consensus can be reached.

Grollτech (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• (a) You say and to try to address each in turn but it's really not clear which points you're making address which bits of other people's arguments (b) Public domain doesn't exist in NZ copyright law, so the judge could not have been putting the images in the copyright public domain, he could have been moving them from the confidential domain to the public one, however. (c) as copyrightable material produced by crown agents, the images remain Crown_copyright, as per the Copyright Act 1994. (d) shock sites can claim copyright, and the documents linked prove they do; whether those claims hold weight is a separate matter. (e) this article has been written in a New Zealand context; how exactly is the American first amendment relevant here? I'm not seeing anyone else talk about this... (f) I don't see anyone arguing that inclusion of the images in the article is illegal; you appear to have misunderstood what we're discussing. (g) your arguments do not address the important issue, which is whether images would improve the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Thank you Grolltech (and also Boneyard90) for bringing some voices of reason to this discussion. I'd not considered the public domain aspect of the photos, and that's something worth giving serious consideration to. Anyway, I'm now boldly reintroducing the image. As discussed above, there are no policy reasons to exclude it, and it's directly relevant to this article because it is encyclopedic. The issue of people finding the image here (covered in Grolltech's extensive post, which appears too long, but I did read and would recommend to others) is something I discussed with my wife the other night: I believe there are already numerous existing online sources for such images, and it's inconceivable that people seeking such images would come to Wikipedia because they can't find what they're looking for elsewhere - also, the article title does kind of give away the likely content, again something I discussed with my wife... and in case anyone's wondering, no she didn't ask to see the image. -- Trevj (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BOLD only applies the first time you do something and certainly doesn't apply while there's still an active disscussion on the talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. But anyway, this discussion hasn't resulted in any policy-based reasons for excluding the image. As for that potential RFC I mentioned, do you feel like logging it, or should I? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage you to. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Trevj (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as I find this insistance on needing a policy-based reason to exclude the photo interesting. We do have a policy in WP:Consensus. Editors need to decide, through consensus, whether or not to include material. There is no policy that says that we must include any given image, so short of that, we need to decide in each case whether or not we should do so. If the community decides to include an image, and there is no policy-based reason (such as the non-free content policy) why we can't, we accept the local consensus. And if consensus is to leave it out, then we go with the community decision. - Bilby (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a point. But including the image is obviously encyclopedic and appropriate to this article. I note that there is no consensus to exclude the image either. -- Trevj (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reply regarding consensus at #Determining consensus in accordance with policy. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the image as it was in contravention of Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria 10a. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've placed what I believe to be sufficient additional source information within the non-free use rationale (even though the source from last week now appears to be a dead link), and so am reincluding the image in the article. -- Trevj (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As a guide, I looked at the Autopsy article and at the top there are drawings of what most people would see as a graphic event. Surely there is some discretion being used there? And likewise I think it should be used here. What I find suspsicious is that users supporting the photo haven't outlined how it adds to the article by including it. I.e. Does the image give us anymore information about Ngatikaura Ngati that we didn't already know - Like what he looks like (his face)? Does the image give anymore information on the method of the abuse than a written description? Most people know what a bruise looks like don't they? This article is the only Wikipedia page about Ngatikaura Ngati, so I don't see why anyone googling his name to find out about his story, should have to see that image. The case for justification of including the image is the possibility of reducing child abuse. This is the belief from users who say they are against child abuse and find the image unpleasant/shocking, who clearly live in a different world to the people involved in this type of crime. If I was a child abuser I don't see why such an image would deter potential abuse, and it may even have the opposite effect.Rudolph89^talk 23:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopsy refers to the general case, while Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati is obviously a specific example with independent notability, and therefore deserves a specific image, which significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (WP:NFCC#8). If the appearance of bruises is so obvious, then why do we include images of them there? (The free status of such photos versus the non-free photo here is not a valid reason for omission.) Most people would agree that, generally, a picture is worth a thousand words. Justification for use in the media is the possibility of reducing child abuse; justification for use on Wikipedia is to inform readers in an encyclopedic manner. You've speculated about how a child abuser might feel, and I'd now encourage you to speculate how a sibling, grandparent, carer or social worker might feel. -- Trevj (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Determining consensus in accordance with policy

(Copied from above) Just to be clear, as I find this insistance on needing a policy-based reason to exclude the photo interesting. We do have a policy in WP:Consensus. Editors need to decide, through consensus, whether or not to include material. There is no policy that says that we must include any given image, so short of that, we need to decide in each case whether or not we should do so. If the community decides to include an image, and there is no policy-based reason (such as the non-free content policy) why we can't, we accept the local consensus. And if consensus is to leave it out, then we go with the community decision. - Bilby (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, there are in fact numerous references to policy:

1. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring, except for specific policy-based material and for reversions of vandalism.
2. ... editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.
3. Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal.
4. Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary.
5. The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible.
6. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
7. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Therefore, I'm reincluding the image in accordance with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NOTCENSORED. I'd like to respectfully advise that any subsequent removal should be policy-based. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trevj, I respect that you feel strongly about this, but there's no need for the image to be added back just now. It is a sensitive issue, relating to something that we all feel strongly about, so it makes sense to let the RfC run its course and see where other editors stand, at leaste for a few days. We don't have a policy that says that we must include the image, and so far we haven't found consensus to do so. In the end, it may be the case that we can't reach a consensus, and in that case we'll need to make a call on whether that defaults to inclusion or exclusion. But it does make sense to leave it out for a bit longer to let the RfC proceed before having to make that call. - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And there's no oustanding (policy-based) need that I know of for it to remain removed either. On 4 Oct I suggested a compromise solution involving cropped image(s), which objectors appear to have not yet commented on. I'll take on board your suggestion to hesitate a while longer before fully considering further reinclusion, but this period will likely be less than the "few days" you suggest. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Clearly there are different views of whether WP:NFCC#8 applies here. I don't believe it does. Also (a) While there is active discussion here without resolution there is no consensus. (b) I find your insistence on ignoring everything but whether the image WP:POINTY (something I raised earlier, which you don't seem to have acknowledged or replied to). (c) WP:NFCC#10 is still not met; I explained above who the copyright holder is; that information hasn't been transferred to the image. (d) I still think that, as with Goatse.cx and Shocksite that image does not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article (something I raised earlier, which you don't seem to have acknowledged or replied to). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, could you please explain why you don't believe that the inclusion of the image significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? It's clear to me that the image is a valuable visual depiction of the result of the actions of Ngati's abusers, which it would be near impossible to describe in words alone. It's for this sort of reason that we allow the use of non-free images.
2. With reference to my previous comments, I understand that while there is active discussion here without resolution there is no consensus but that doesn't necessarily mean that we revert to the status quo, particularly when there appear to be no policy-based reasons for excluding the image. Editing is part of building consensus.
3. I don't share your view that I have an insistence on ignoring everything but whether the image. The history of Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that my contributions here are not POINTy and have also included:
   • The addition of an infobox, the inclusion of which you say added as little to the article as the image.
   • The Kiro/McCroskie POV and quotes (which your subsequent amendment has built upon)
   • Some minor rewording
   • Rewording of potential close paraphrasing (potential WP:COPYVIO) content - I've yet to check which editor(s) included such content
4. My response to ... the addition is WP:POINTY with the intent to shock included "The intent is not to shock, but to inform... 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." I consider this to be a valid acknowledgement and reply.
5. I believe that WP:NFCC#10 is now fully met, and am somewhat amused by what I find to be irony in your POINTy accusation: you provide here on the talk page the necessary NFU info and remove the image, rather than simply updating the NFU rationale yourself.
6. Comparisons with Goatse.cx and shocksite are not particularly helpful because such specific instances don't AFAIK set any sort of precedent which could necessarily be transferable elsewhere. The value (or otherwise, and with reference to policies) of including an appropriate image here in Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati is what's being discussed.
7. Apologies if I've not previously made clear why I find the image to add to the encyclopedic nature of the article (although I believed my previous responses had covered this). I've restated my reasons in (1) just above. Conversely, I cannot grasp how you believe that the image does not add to the encyclopedic nature of the article and request that you please elaborate.

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Goatse.cx and shocksite examples were included because these are specific examples of cases where a consensus has been reached the images of the thing under discussion are better off not in the article. BTW do you have sources for "Autopsy photograph showing some of the injuries that killed 3 year-old Ngatikaura Ngati."? Best I have is "Pathologists have argued in court over the exact cause of his death, but there was no dispute he was covered in injuries." Bear in mind that those convicted are still alive, so this is a BLP issue. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the images are the subject of the article, then I'm sure that any of a number of sources would be appropriate. In particular, the TV One broadcast would be a good candidate. I'll have a further think about this, with a view to adding something. As for your other points, I understand that Goatse.cx included issues around uploading the image for use in vandalism. As for BLP, I fully understand that, which is why I included the relevant WIkiProject in my notification and listed the RFC under the appropriate category too. -- Trevj (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC on image inclusion

Consensus not reached at #Inclusion of autopsy image. -- Trevj (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• No images as per the hard-fought and now settled discussion at Talk:Goatse.cx and because I don't believe that any of the avaliable images add anything to the encyclopedic nature of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• I have a question, a comment, and a suggestion towards building consensus:

Question: We've asked for an RFC – and rightly so – but has anybody noticed that we've received no new participants in the discussion as a result? How can we, if nobody is being allowed to see the image? Unless they are already familiar with the case, they'll show up at the page, see nothing, and leave. Now, before you tell me that they can Google the image, or they can hunt through the page history, yes they can, that's how I found the image. But there will be those who will lose interest and not bother – it's human nature.

Comment: There have been a number of comments on this page saying that they were opposed to about being "forced" to see the image, or opposed to seeing it at the top of the page. Trevj made suggestions towards compromise that were ignored by everyone but me – that's hardly surprising, because a 'deletionist' stance allows no room for compromise, it's all or nothing. Nevertheless, I'll try again, and offer a second option towards achieving middle ground.

Suggestion: What about using a <gallery> section? Instead of a 250px image at the top of the page, you get a thumbnail that is 120px×80px at the bottom, and, if it has a section header like "Image Gallery", the user will have at least some level of "warning", both from the Table of Contents and from the Section Header.  Grollτech (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #9 seems to prohibit use in galleries, or do I have the wrong end of the stick? (I've never worked with galleries before). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Galleries in main namespace are fine. NFCC#9 just means that non-free images can't be rendered in other namespaces, e.g. category listings. I'm temporarily adding the image to a gallery section in order to facilitate consensus building. -- Trevj (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:NFC, galleries are not normally acceptable for non-free images. That said, the format isn't the issue. The question for me is whether or not including the image causes harm, as per what Dr. Cindy Kiro had argued, which made it an issue for the community to discuss - although that is not to say that there may not be other valid concerns. The other issue is whether image should be included because it was shocking. If we don't remove images because the offend, we shouldn't really add images because they will shock people. But I think there are stronger arguments for inclusion than that, so it is not a significant concern in itself any more. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Automatic notifications In response to Grolltech's point above about participation in this discussion, I count 8 such automatic notifications sent out so far by RFC bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Trevj (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Alternative images These have been discussed above. Here's one such site which depicts a few alternatives. I've no idea if there are further images available elsewhere to choose from. -- Trevj (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for "showing some of the injuries that killed Ngatikaura Ngati" in the caption? As I mentioned above, the best I have is "Pathologists have argued in court over the exact cause of his death, but there was no dispute he was covered in injuries." which would make the caption in consistent with the reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is the caption beneath the image, which I cropped out because it's not particularly legible and didn't seem relevant enough to include. I'm not exactly sure, but I presume it was added by the TV station for use in their broadcast. The TV station is a reliable source, although if the pathologists did not agree then I guess the wording to accompany the image should reflect this. -- Trevj (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose images I don't think adding these images would improve the encyclopedic value of the article. If there are some GOOD policy based reasons for inclusion, I'd like to hear them. Suggest adding the BEST arguments for and against from the MASSIVE discussion above to the RFC section for us to decide on, I'd rather not have to read that entire thing tbh. So without hearing any good reason for inclusion, and I think WP:NOTCENSORED is NOT a good reason for inclusion, then I'd oppose their inclusion. — raekyt 05:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go ahead and state that they SHOULD be linked too in the External Links section, but I still don't see valid reason for inclusion in the article, you don't need to SEE these images to understand the controversy of their release which is what the article is about. — raekyt 05:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

    Do you have any GOOD policy based reasons for exclusion, please? -- Trevj (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion (somewhere in the article) per

1. WP:DUE

   Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. The fact that the images were broadcast on television (and were also published on shock sites and probably the tabloid press) means that we need to give them due weight here too. WP:NOTTABLOID is a factor to consider, although it would be helpful to know whether printed copies of the more serious media published photo(s) which they've omitted from their website reporting of the matter.

2. WP:IUP

   Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). That policy also refers to galleries.

3. WP:CON

   The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. (emphasis added)

4. WP:NFCI (guideline, rather than policy - also it should be noted that there's some ambiguity over the free/non-free status of the images)

   Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate.

-- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard pressed to accept that an image needs to be presented because it must be given equal weight. An image is not a point of view, at least in the sense that WP:DUE is getting at. :) The policy says that we must present, in the article, the various viewpoints about the issue, not that we have to include any particular image. (Although I notice none of the reliable sources used in the article include the images).

In regard to WP:CON, I think we can agree that the point of that section is that we need to get consensus to make changes, whether those changes regard inclusion or exclusion of content. Which does seem to be the point of this discussion - to get consensus one way or the other. Interesting points, but they don't really further things. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Due weight is to be given to competing points of view. In this case, the competing views are:
  1. choosing to publish the images; and
  2. choosing not to publish the images.

Media outlets (presumably and not exclusively) make decisions according to legal policies, content policies, public interest and general editorial judgement. As editors here, we are to fairly and proportionally represent such publishing choices made by reliable sources: the only editorial judgement we should be exercising regarding the inclusion of image(s) is to what extent we should publish it/them. You note that none of the reliable sources used in the article include the images, but I've already stated above that it would be helpful to know whether printed copies of the more serious media published photo(s) which they've omitted from their website reporting of the matter.

Furthermore (and I apologise for the WP:TL;DR, but am pre-empting a proposed page move, as yet another "argument" to exclude the image), even if the article were titled Death of Ngatikaura Ngati or similar, we'd still need to give image(s) due weight.

• Consensus in arriving at a decision is to be based on how the inclusion/exclusion of material improves the article. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE (part of the MoS) states Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals (emphasis added). I've yet to read a valid argument for why the image should be excluded ("would not improve the encyclopedic value" is plainly not true, and the MoS encourages images: Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation; "issues of privacy and respect" were not upheld, with the Broadcasting Standards Authority determining that such considerations "do not apply to deceased individuals... do not apply to photographs of the deceased child".)

Please note that in using the term image(s) here, I'm making no recommendation as to the number of images we include. My edit of 1 Oct added a single image, because I considered that to be an appropriate level of inclusion. The plural terminology is merely to acknowledge that others may wish to attempt to justify more images (either now or in the future, e.g. if/when the article prose is further expanded).

-- Trevj (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It continues to be a very strange reading of WP:DUE. Even using the words you chose, all that means is that we need to cover both sides in the article - the arguments about why the images should have been released, and the arguments why they should not. We do that. I have no idea why that would mean that we should both include and not include the image. Its a very odd line of debate, and not worth pursuing. Otherwise, I'm not really inclined to wikilawyer. In the end, there will be community consensus to include the image, or consensus not to do so. It will be interesting to see which it is. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS for the images use on "pornographic website"

I've just found [1] which clearly labels at least one website pornographic, but doesn't say which. I'm assuming that we can all agree that Otago Daily Times is a WP:Reliable source? Including the ODT also broadens the range of news sources in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good find, and inclusion of the information it contains would be encyclopedic in my view. I agree that it seems to be WP:RS. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made a change and added the ref. I'm not really happy with the wording of that sentence. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that article is a good find, although I suspect my reason for saying so is quite different from yours. Along the lines of the essay (not policy) Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, this source is perfectly fine.

It's interesting to note that the New Zealand Herald ran nearly the exact same story the day after the Otago Daily Times ran theirs, and ODT makes it perfectly clear that their source is the APNZ. When a journalist at one of APNZ's 52 member newspapers writes an article that may be of interest to others, it distributes the story. What is notable about ODT's article is the way in which they say "The website, which APNZ has decided not to name, ...", as if to distance themselves from that decision. It's likely, however, that the APNZ doesn't deserve the 'blame' either, but rather one of the other 50 papers. You guys may know better than I whether such language of disavowal is commonplace in NZ, but it is fairly unusual in the US. For what it's worth, it certainly appears to buttress my argument #6 under "Obscenity/Pornography".

Incidentally, Stuartyeates, you said to me a few days ago, "I don't see anyone arguing that inclusion of the images in the article is illegal; you appear to have misunderstood what we're discussing." In fact, no, I understood perfectly well what we were discussing. You'll notice that the word "pornography" was increasing in frequency on this page. Although nobody said it explicitly, the not-so-subtle implication is that: {("porn website")+("picture of dead naked boy")=("child pornography")}. To imply it is to (subconsciously or otherwise) prejudice opinion. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of balancing the POV of "Some time later the photos appeared on pornographic websites" to "Some time later the photos appeared on Internet shock sites, which some have characterized as pornographic." Grollτech (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(a) Those wording changes look fine to me. (b) When I said "I don't see anyone arguing that inclusion of the images in the article is illegal; you appear to have misunderstood what we're discussing." I was in no way referring to child pornography, I was referring to building an encyclopaedic article. I should have been more direct, sorry. (c) Suppression around such things is very common in New Zealand media. The Family Courts Act 1980 effectively prohibits a wide range of things. You'll notice, for example that the health and status of Ngati's siblings is effectively not reported upon. Prior to any of the legal proceedings mentioned in the article there would have been Family Court proceedings dealing with the (interim or permanent) care of the siblings (because their parents / guardians were then on remand) and those proceedings would have shielded those siblings from further in-depth reporting. Notice also that details of Ngati's foster parents are hazy, possibly because those foster parents are now looking after surviving siblings and publishing details that lead to the identification of them would be illegal. For a high-profile example of the enforcement of these rules, see Cameron Slater. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New opening sentence

The first sentence in the lede currently reads "Ngatikaura Ngati was a Tongan toddler in Otara, Auckland, New Zealand who died in a severe case of child abuse in January 2006." it used to read "Ngatikaura Ngati was a New Zealand-Tongan toddler who died in of child abuse in January 2006." I don't think this is an improvement, because (a) Otara was where Ngati died, but he didn't spend most of his life there, (b) "New Zealand-Tongan" makes it clear that there are cross-cultural issues at work here and (b) "severe case of child abuse" is POV pushing---we've just said he died of it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the change, but I accept the above argument. I hadn't considered the cross-cultural issue. Grollτech (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Grollτech (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)