Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati/Archive 2

WP:RS for the images use on "pornographic website"
I've just found 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)  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."  Groll &tau;ech  ( 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.  Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 11:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 22:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Claims in image metadata
The first sentence of the file Description is "Autopsy photograph showing some of the injuries that killed 3 year-old Ngatikaura Ngati." I asked above for a source for this statement and didn't get a response. Given that we have WP:RS saying that there was dispute about exactly which injures killed the child and I'm not aware of any WP:RS saying that the judge ruled on them, this statement seems wholly unsupported and in breach of BLP. The second sentence is packed with emotive words. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have gone ahead and changed the Metadata to read: "One of several autopsy photographs that were presented as evidence at trial over the killing of 3 year-old Ngatikaura Ngati. His mother and stepfather were found guilty of manslaughter in this case of child abuse. Most notably, in June of 2007, after the completion of the trial and at the request of New Zealand's TV One, Auckland High Court Judge Graham Lang made the unusual and controversial decision to release the photographs into the public realm, "so that they may give pause to those people who choose to ignore that their family members are being hurt.""


 * When you say, I'm not aware of any WP:RS saying that the judge ruled on them..., are you referring to "ruling on which injuries killed the child", or "ruling on releasing the photos into the public realm"?
 * Assuming you mean the former:
 * The way I understand the "dispute about exactly which injuries killed the child": the medical examiner was unable to definitively say which injury caused the death, because there were multiple injuries which by themselves could have killed him, such as: systemic infection through the open lesion on the buttocks (shown in photograph), internal bleeding and damage to vascular system (note the size and color of the left arm, shown in photograph), damage to the kidneys or other internal organs (note the bruising on the lower back, shown in photograph), etc.
 * (Side note: Wow, that photograph sure comes in handy to a person who might desire a deeper understanding of the subject – nobody can learn any of that from the text of the article, because it's not there. I don't understand how anyone can say that that the photograph provides "no additional encyclopedic value", especially in an article that is  about  the photograph.  It's just a weak and disingenuous argument, IMHO, but I digress....)
 * Back on point: Although I've changed the language, I'm compelled to point out that a caption that (used to) read, "Autopsy photograph showing some of the injuries that killed..." (emphasis added) is hardly so egregious as to warrant being characterized as "wholly unsupported and in breach of BLP".
 * Regardless, we've had (parts of) this discussion before, as it related to the first sentence in the article. I agreed with you on the "emotive words" then, and nothing has changed – similar words in the metadata was a simple oversight.  Regardless, it's fixed..
 * If instead you meant the latter, please let me know – I've covered that before, but would be happy to provide the list of reliable sources.   Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ The metadata is now much better. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Parole and Deportation
The article currently says "Fa'asisila was paroled in December 2011 and sent back to Tonga.[5]" Sourced to http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Data/faasisilateusila.htm. The statement does not appear to be supported by the links to mainstream news on the site. This is the website of a criminal justice lobby group and is very borderline WP:RS (see [] for our previous efforts to replace it as a soruce). The source also does not say he was paroled, it says "Came up for parole December 2011 /Will be sent back to Tonga upon release" In New Zealand "Came up for parole December 2011" means "First appeared before the parole board" not "was released on parole" People can remain in prison for decades after appearing before the parole board. I don't see either of them on http://www.paroleboard.govt.nz/decisions-statistics-and-publications/decisions-of-public-interest.html (not everyone appears there) Note that there are deportation from New Zealand is not automatic in such cases, see for example http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10831949 Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I modified the sentence to be more accurate (and fixed the reference), but I don't feel strongly either way on this one. This is actually a good example where it would be appropriate to apply the label "limited encyclopedic value" – it pertains to the backstory, as opposed to the subject of the article.  Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yes, the current version is much improved. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Photos" or "images"
Currently the caption of the image is "One of the autopsy photographs of Ngatikaura Ngati" I believe it's a screen capture of the television image of a photograph. I suggest using "photos" / "photographs" for the originals and then "images" for the distributed versions. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the semantics of the terms are debatable. For consistency with the article title, perhaps it'd be logical to use the word "images" instead. But they're images of photographs, so other than for reasons of such consistency it doesn't seem to be an especially important issue. -- Trevj (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Expansion
I just did a sizeable expansion to this article – I made a great effort to stay neutral, and expanded upon both Kiro's position, the Broadcast Standards Authority complaint, etc.

Here is the.

Changes include:
 * New subsections under "Distribution of the Images", called
 * Broadcast television -- this where most of the expansion is, discussing the issues raised by Kiro's complaint.
 * Email petition
 * Shock web sites
 * corrected references (dates, publisher, etc);
 * moved image to bottom as previously discussed;
 * included a forward page link to the image – serves the same purpose intended for a 'gallery section' – a gentle warning that there's an image down there.
 * corrected quote marks
 * corrected a mis-quote of Inspector Middleton -- he never said the old quote, replaced with new one.

Please take a look, and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned about the Broadcast television section - it seems to be entirely reliant on a single primary source, with no secondary sources being used to provide context or an idea of weight. Are there any secondary sources? Otherwise it may need to be trimmed. - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about what you feel might need to be "trimmed"? Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 10:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The emphasis on that issue. Other half the article is on that issue, yet on the basis of importance, that seems to be a relatively minor point, as most of the concerns were not about whether or not TVNZ should have shown the images. I'd be inclined to reduce the coverage in order not to over emphasis the importance of the TVNZ complaint. - Bilby (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that better?   Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Validity of RFC closure
The close at #RFC on image inclusion is appreciated. Unfortunately, I believe there to be some cause for concern in the closing editors' evaluation of policy-based arguments in his RFC closes. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know that it's all in the page history, right? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I included the phrase "not easily able to do so" (emphasis added here). Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)