Talk:Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova

About the image

This edit suggested that I made a "decision" but of course I don't decide such things. I reverted the edit just to make it clear that it isn't a decision or decree by me. I think it's a good idea, though, but we should discuss it here on the talk page first.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, what would you suggest in this case? Кадош (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello @Кадош and Jimbo Wales:, I just edit conflicted reverting this with Jimbo, was trying to to bring the discussion here under our Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I don't personally have issue with using some sort of click-through image reveal mechanism (though I expect others may) - however I do object to the technical implementation. Your change left an "easter egg" of a floating "show" link with no indication of what its purpose was, this may be confusing at best for readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What variant of technical implementation would you like? Кадош (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not too picky, for example some of our article navigation boxes are "collapsed" by default, but there is still a header, something to indicate to the reader that (a) there is more content here and (b) operating this control will get you the additional content. By just leaving a seemingly random 'show' link, not only is there no indication of its purpose, but with your goal being that people may not want to see the image behind it - there is no way to know not to click on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This part of the discussion may be best continued at Template:NSFW if it will become protracted. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The image should either appear in the article or not appear in the article (I don't have a super strong opinion about that: it is relevant, but sensationalist). If it appears, then it should be shown without censorship boxes (compare the more controversial images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or fisting or lynching). If it is not shown, then a link to the image on Commons in the See Also section would work for me (like in Debbie Does Dallas). I see no reason to deviate from our long held anti-censorship stance for this, and certainly not for the silly idea of making Wikipedia "safe for work". By design, it can never be "safe". —Kusma (t·c) 20:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for discussion I'll include here a "hatting solution." Nevertheless, I don't think this is a real solution. My other main objection is with the article that surrounds the photo. Before we even consider putting in such a photo, I think we need to make the article acceptable. There has been a tag at the top of this article for 3 years - it needs to be addressed along with other problems.

WARNING You may find this photo to be disturbing (or wording much more direct)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gulchehra Boboqulova with the head of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova near the Oktyabrskoye Pole metro station on 29 February 2016.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, be bold. Кадош (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: yes, I'm well aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, but the image is not 100% necessary for an understanding of the case, as discussed on Jimbo's talk page. I'm not going to revert endlessly if someone insists on having it, but do bear in mind that most media outlets, including Wikipedia, do not include graphic material for the sake of it. For example, Wikipedia articles about suicide bombings could easily include graphic images of corpses if they were CC licensed, but as the saying goes, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Also, the current images in the article are way too large. It is making a meal of the images in a way that is inappropriate. See WP:NOTGALLERY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, read WP:NOTGALLERY: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." That is this rule does not describe the situation, because this article contains a lot of text and only a few images. Кадош (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The article has ended up using images like a tabloid newspaper story. *VERY BIG* images are not needed in the article, and in this edit there were three images of the woman with the child's head when one is adequate. Don't milk it. This image is probably the least offensive of the three.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

These particular photos shocked many people around the world and made this crime widely known. Removing these photos from the article or shyly hiding them does not correspond to their importance. The article without these photos looks inadequate. Кадош (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm British and cannot find any mainstream British news source that showed the uncensored images. It is mostly Internet websites that have done this. It is also interesting/worrying that the source on Commons for these images is this piece on a website called catholic.org. This is one of many websites that has used the images to say "Hey folks, aaand it was a Muslim". Possible Islamophobia here, as the woman was mentally ill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just your interpretation of facts. Wikipedia is uncensored - that is why these photos shows the uncensored images unlike any mainstream British news source. Wikipedia is not a mainstream news source, but it is encyclopedia. Encyclopedic article format differs from a newspaper's article format. Кадош (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep image. It is fully appropriate. As an aside I should say frankly that it is not particularly horrific compared to anatomical images we use routinely and beneficially, e.g. to illustrate common carotid artery or most other structures. However horrifying the murder, the ensuing public display in itself did nothing further to harm the child, and so it would be beyond childish to imagine that we, by not looking at that, would somehow erase the crime. We are here to document history, not to like it. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Some non-Russian sources

It may be more productive if we stop debating the image(s) and perhaps focus on the article. The murder (or at least the subsequent trial) has been covered in English-language media [1] so it would make sense to add some non-Russian sources. For the claims about a state coverup, the Deutsche Welle source also exists in English: [2]. The BBC also reported: [3]. Better quality sources seem to avoid the images (the Daily Mail does not). —Kusma (t·c) 21:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is more important than simply repeating the news coverage of the murder with lavish coverage of the photos. The incident is notable because the photos were shown widely on the Internet, often accompanied by captions deriding Islam. This in turn led to accusations that Russian state media was playing down or even censoring coverage of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

We certainly need to consider WP:BLP here. We probably don't have policies on WP:Mental illness and WP:Hate speech, but that is only because we don't need policies on something so obvious. WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies as has been noted. Let's not even consider the photos until the article has been cleaned up (or deleted). Perhaps I'm just stating the obvious here, but I don't think any reliable source in the US or UK would publish such photos, and I don't see any reason we should. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, I do not see any reason why we should not publish these photos. WP:NOTCENSOR: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍ —‌ even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." This rule expresses Consensus of Wikipedia's editors. If you disagree with this rule, then suggest that Wikipedia's editors should change this rule and establish censorship on the English Wikipedia. But in accordance with WP:DISCL:

"*Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures.

• Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts.
• Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions.

Wikipedia contains obscure information that would not be covered in a conventional encyclopedia." It is Wikipedia. It is a terrible site. Кадош (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Offensive material covers this pretty well. If there is no reason to put the photo in the article, then being offensive and WP:NOTCENSORED do not mean that the photo must be included. I see the image as promoting hate among many people and don't see that as a goal of Wikipedia - that's obviously a matter for WP:NPOV.

BTW, I don't see "Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions" anywhere. If you can give me a link, I'll likely open a discussion on it. (found the link) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that many people would dispute that the image showing the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém is within policy guidelines, due to its key importance in the Vietnam war, but the image of the woman holding the child's head aloft is less clear. The shock sites are full of this type of material, and Jimbo (among others) has said that it is not really necessary for an understanding of the case. There are still WP:NOTNEWS problems here, because the encyclopedic notability is at issue, not the news notability. Rather than simply repeating the news coverage of the case, there has to be some analysis and context showing why it is important. The foreign language sources make a better job of this than the Russian language ones.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, I suppose that the rule Wikipedia:Offensive material is not applicable to the photos because they are not offensive - they do not offence anybody. I do not see that the images promote hate among people - these images just show the fact as it was. Кадош (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see the photos as offensive or promoting hate, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Please don't ping me anymore on this matter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If these photos promote hate, then only hate to the killer. Protecting killers is not a Wikipedia's aim. Кадош (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There are many things very wrong with the idea of censoring photos to "protect" cultural groups. High on that list is that it doesn't actually work. The web's discussion groups show that people worked out a loong time ago that if a newspaper headline says that "White Man Brutally Attacks Black Woman", this is a criminal offense by a member of one race, and if it says "Woman Brutally Attacked", it's probably an offense by another. For racists, this is their bread and butter, like a government subsidy program to keep them in business. People search after every crime by an unnamed, undisclosed suspect to see if some reporter managed to catch a little bit of a skin shade as someone was being hustled into a car or a link to some religious organization, and end up finding their answers on a hardcore racist site where people are willing to level with them. Now, that isn't Wikipedia's problem, but for us to be perceived as part of the "Luegenpresse" because we abandon core principles in a worse than useless crusade to "do good" rather than write an encyclopedia? That is our problem! Wnt (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

About the image 2

Others pictures from the same event are proposed to deletion : here and here.
This one will be proposed too as mother prevents anybody from using any pictures of her daughter on wikipedia. --Akhmadjan (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

These pictures have nothing to do with this one. And this one was published in the article by decision of editors of the English Wikipedia. Also you have already proposed to delete this image from Commons and it was kept. So stop edit warring, please. Кадош (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Various editors including Jimbo Wales have said that the image of the woman holding the child's head is not appropriate for the article. It seems to be Кадош putting it back repeatedly. There is a lack of WP:CONSENSUS here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm, your have lied - Jimbo Wales did not said that the image was not appropriate for the article - see the discussion. Кадош (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo removed the image in this edit but we are still having discussions about whether it is of encyclopedic value. It is worrying that you put it back every time it is removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo reverted my edit just because of my comment that was "In accordance with Jimbo Wales' decision" - Jimbo was disagree with my interpretation of his words. It is worrying why some people like censorship. Кадош (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to say anything about this that will lead to a repeat of things that have already been said. My main concern is that one editor is repeatedly putting back the image despite concerns from other editors. WP:NOTCENSORED means that the material has to be essential for a reader's understanding. It has been pointed out that there are numerous images of bomb victims etc which are not used in Wikipedia articles because they are not essential for an understanding of the incident and there is a risk of upsetting the victims' relatives. What seems to have happened here is that the images have been deemed to have copyright free status under Russian law because they are taken from CCTV footage. If they required a fair use rationale they would probably not be on Wikipedia or Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not the only editor who supported existance of that picture in the article. I do not know why other editors who wished the picture to be shown in the article did not return it into the article before I did. As to copyright issue, then I prefer not to discource what would probably be or not if we have another laws, another Wikipedia, what whould probably be if a grandmother was a grandfather and so on. Кадош (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of the photo

We're now going round in circles on this. If anyone removes the image Гюльчехра Бобокулова 29.02.2016.jpg (NSFW) it is likely to be put back again, as in this edit summary. Broader input is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever is to discuss here??? "Раммон can't use those photos on wikipedia" - this? Seriously? First, why Akhmadjan wrote about plural photos while he deleted one photo? Second, Раммон has nothing to do with the placement of this photo in the article. Third, Akhmadjan was already told that his argument for deletion of the photo was not based on Wikipeda's (Commons') rules. Forth, the phrase "Раммон can't use those photos on wikipedia" shows that Akhmadjan understands nothing in copyright. So, what are you going to talk about? You, ianmacm, like an experienced Wikipedia's editor should explain to the newbie basic Wikipedia's rules rather than seriously consider his words. Кадош (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not my words Кадош, it's victim's mother's ones. What copyright are you talking about?!? We are not dealing with primitive technical questions, you are more clever then merely reading a simple algorithm telling that if true, true and false then I do what I want according to my wonderful wikipedian rules, aren't you?
    We are dealing with the right of a mother who has lost her child on tragical conditions and who wants to preserve her daughter's dignity and memory above all, and clearly expressed it. For your memory:

« На странице Векипедия была опубликована статья — Убийство Анастасии Мещеряковой 31.03.2016 года. В статье были использованы фотографии моего несовершеннолетнего ребенка Мещеряковой Анастасии, я являюсь матерью ребенка Мещерякова Екатерина Александровна и категорически возражаю, что без моего согласия была использована фотография моей несовершеннолетней дочери Мещеряковой Анастасии. В связи с этим требую убрать все фотографии моей несовершеннолетней дочери Мещеряковой Анастасии, в противном случае вынуждена буду обратиться за помощью в суд. »

For the mother, pictures of her daughter beheaded on the street are worst than those made in a private place. Unfortunately it's the first ones which are used by Раммон, taking benefit of the law to violate, as violently as that mentally disturbed woman in fact, that mother. According to me, it's pure sadism, hidden behind so-called right to inform. He feels free to act as he acts as he can't in Russia. And we should stay quiet. Not for me. --Akhmadjan (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about rights of the mother to the image of the corpse of her daughter was discussed in detail here. And the participants of the discussion stated the fact that no one - neither the mother nor anyone else, except the author of the photo, has no rights to the image of the corpse of this girl. That is, the question of using this photo is reduced only to the issue of copyright, and there are no problems here. As to feelings of the mother about the photo of her daughter, there are a lot of websites on the Internet, which published both lifetime and posthumous photos of this girl. Wikipedia has no goal to be holier than the Pope and not to publish this photo while it has already been published on many other sites. Кадош (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the question is whether the image provides sufficiently useful encyclopedic information on the topic. It would seem that there is no copyright issue, and BLP does not apply. So, what encyclopedic value does the image add to the article that would not be there in its absence? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This image provides as sufficiently useful encyclopedic information on the topic as one of key photos of the sad story. Without the image the article is not complete. Кадош (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed there doesn't seem to be a copyright problem here. As this image and it's online distribution are a part of the story, of the notability of the incident, and thus our rationale for having an article, I don't see an argument for excluding it on "appropriateness" grounds. Yes, it's grisly, but that's much to do with why we even have an article on this. Lots of kids are murdered every year, but they don't rate coverage here because they are not big, global public controversies, just local ones. Cf. WP:NOTCENSORED. I don' think Daniel Pearl is a good counter-example, because his abduction and captivity were in the news before the posting of the beheading video (i.e., it was already a notable event and would have remained one even if he'd been released alive, or had been killed without footage of it being released).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not mean to be censored. But I dont think to show a corpse without even censored the details, like what the medias do in these occasions (at least in France) is a good thing. Wikipedia should inform the public, but not show the darkest if it not useful (we dont show propaganda video when a terrorist organisation kill an otage). The terrorist of Christchurch mosque shootings film himself the scene in Facebook, but video was removed. In France there is a law which reprim "broadcasting a message with violent content abetting terrorism, or of a nature likely to seriously violate human dignity and liable to be seen by a minor".So my vision may suffer some deviance. --Gratus (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • And where does the laws of France or Zimbabwe? It is English Wikipedia that is obeyed to USA laws only. And as to France, then look at the image (File:Beheaded dick-in-mouth.jpg, which was renamed to File:Severed heads and penises of two Algerian men - 1956.jpg on 25 November 2019) that is used in the article "fr:Torture pendant la guerre d'Algérie" of French Wikipedia.Кадош (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• I think it's better to not include it per WP:SHIT: [NOTCENSORED] does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. I agree with Jimbo and some editors here that I don't really see the encyclopedic value this photo adds. I don't buy SMcCandlish's argument about it being the reason we have the article because this photo is not mentioned once in the article; the event it depicts doesn't even get its own sentence. And it's not even the most important or interesting part of that sentence: Boboqulova showed them Anastasiya's head and told them that she had killed the child and was now going to blow herself up. In two months of arguing about this no one has added any information about the spread of the photo, and neither has anyone done so in the three years this article has existed. When megabytes have been written about why we should not remove the image but not a byte has been spilled to include sourced content that places it in encyclopedic context, the argument that this is indispensable seems very weak. If it were so obviously important and well known, presumably someone in three years time would have written more than 5 words of prose about it in this article. Following MOS:IMAGES, the version without this image is not any less "less informative, relevant, or accurate" and so I don't see how including it improves the encyclopedia. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To rant for a second, it's always interesting how NOTCENSORED arguments never seem to focus on why we ought to include something, but rather on why our hands are tied on removing it. NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact. It doesn't force us to include things. It just says we should treat objectionable content like any other inclusion debate, and the argument for inclusion just doesn't seem that strong here. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wugapodes, you would be right if the article described this photo. But the article describes murder and related circumstances. For example try to apply your reasoning about encyclopedic value this photo adds, to article Sinking of Hableány - in accordance with your reasoning all photos that are in the article now should be deleted from the article. Кадош (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I didn't know what a river cruise boat looks like and I didn't know where its two open decks were located, so a picture helps me figure that out quickly. By contrast, any moderately competent reader of English knows what "cut her head off with a knife" and "showed them [the] head" means, so a picture does not assist understanding those sentences or add any new information beyond what the article already says. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The picture shows the where, environment, clothes of the killer, her body's position besides the cut head. The picture does not show cut head only. Кадош (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
        • There is nothing discernible about the environment from the photo. The prose does a better job of telling the reader where the event occurred. The picture shows her on a sidewalk near three parked cars which could be literally any parking lot on earth. If provided only the photo I would not guess it took place at a metro station, I only know that because of the article. Neither her clothes nor her "body position" are encyclopedic information. Literally no one is reading this article and thinking to themselves "I wonder what the murderer was wearing?" It's not a fashion article. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
          • She was dressed as a shahid woman, and this coincided with her later claims that she killed the girl for revenge for the bombardment of Syria, and that she wanted to live in the Islamic state and wear a paranja. Кадош (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
            • If all you're trying to show is what she's wearing, which I still maintain is not useful, then that can be conveyed by literally any photo of a woman in similar dress. In fact it would better convey what "shahid" means or what a "paranja" is in this context because it wouldn't be a grainy security photo with a severed head that distracts from what the woman holding the head is wearing. This is just what MOS:IMAGES recommends: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake....Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter. Even if we're trying to convey information about style of dress, it's not useful. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)