Talk:Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed/Photograph of corpse

Photograph of corpse

The picture of his corpse is highly unnecessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.55.191 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a extremely graphic picture and it should be moved (at least) to the death section. ▬►Nacho

(Contact me) 01:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a better place for it. However, in response to the OP, the picture is indeed necessary. It is that image that led to a worldwide outcry over his death and protests outside of Egypt proper. Silver seren^C 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the picture is extremely graphic and I apologize to anyone who came across it without any warning. I came across this article, then switched to the Arabic version to read what was being said, when I saw his picture. I thought it was very important to add it. Sorry I'm still learning how to use wikipedia. Thebutterfly (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some kind of warning, maybe a box with a show/hide control? Mats (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, yes, a kind of spoiler box is exactly what's indicated here. If I want to see graphic content, I click the box, if I don't want I don't click. Don't impose the view to the users. Everybody must be able to use Wikipedia without fear of seing very disturbing images. 85.169.122.135 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that that image falls very clearly under the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. It is an image that is imperative for the article and we are not here to censor something just because it is graphic. Silver seren^C 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver, it's not a question of censure on facts. There is also footage of people killed with machetes online. None will wish to display machetes killing videos in wikipedia articles because it's real, and because it's under free license. That's about readers, public, and what is socially accepted to display within the public spaces. Yug (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the picture is extremely graphic. That is why it is imperative that it stay. The official government position is that he suffocated to death. One look shows that that is ludicrous. Rudyoliver (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture must absolutely have a disclaimer and a show/hide control. It should not be removed because it is an important picture, but there must be a way to protect those who do not wish to view this kind of offensive material.

Unfortunately, you've come to the wrong place if you want a censored encyclopedia. As silverseren has said, wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, WP:NODISCLAIMERS are allowed in articles. The picture isn't there to shock you, it's there because it's relevant and stays because being shocking isn't a valid reason to remove content. Regards, .froth. (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind keeping the image in the article, but there should be some discussion in the article/caption of why it is relevant. While it may be apparent to some of us that the image implicitly argues that the suffocation story is not valid, some people may not realize that or believe that. Surely there is a reliable source we can cite that argues this? Until there is some discussion in the article/caption of why the image is relevant (and not just a post mortem image of the dead subject, which is not commonly included in articles of dead people), I think we should remove the image. Rm999 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sentences and a reference to the beginning of the aftermath section that discusses the photo and its importance. Good enough? Silver seren^C 03:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Thanks! Rm999 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this file was already deleted at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_16#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg. This is the second time someone has uploaded this. AniMate 08:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The picture is what sparked the controversy of the police reports versus the witness statements. This is one of many key events that sparked the Egyptian riots that are happening today. I am sure pictures upset people, which led to riots anyway. Seanx820 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

points this conversation thataway* Q ^{T C} 08:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bunch of idiots. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pseudo-anti-censorsip babble / trolling. --83.89.0.118 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how the inclusion of this image is "trolling"? Silver seren^C 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to inform, not to shock. This picture is, yes, extremely violent and shocking. That's not a fiction, that's a real man, and we, readers, have empathy for other people, and social norms. In TV or Theater, this picture would request a prior warning notification before display. In public space, this picture would not be allowed. Wikpedia is a kind of public space, and should also respect social norms. This photograph is definitively shocking, not publicly publishable, and should be remove from this public space. Several comments express this points, and this image was previously deleted on this ground. We have to be factual (WP:NOTCENSORED), but also to respect readers.

Consensual (WP:CONSENSUS) alternatives include textual description, external link with a warning notice, and anatomic scheme. Yug (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2, which overturned the AfD decision. Please find consensus for a act before repeating it, when the repeating is clearly against current consensus. I am going to reinsert the image now. Silver seren^C 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there is not reason to delete the file on the servers, there still is a good portion of readers who do think the photograph should not be display as it in the article.

Encourage hiding (6): 75.22.55.191, Mats, 85.169.122.135, Yug, Anonymous, 83.89.0.118, Yug, Yug

Neutral (2): Thebutterfly ; AniMate

Encourage direct display (6): Nacho, Silver_seren, Silver_serein, Rudyoliver, Froth, Rm999, Seanx820, Silver_serein, Silver_serein

I see a controversy (6 VS 6), with one side expressing shock, the other expressing a will to display the photo and so, facts. Again, I think a safer consensual way is to hide the photo until a working solution is found : rolling box, notification, external link, textual description, whatever. Yug (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look at the DRV, did you? You should add in for Ok: Hobit, The Egyptian Liberal, DGG, Chzz, Jclemens, Tarc, JoshuaZ.

And, as has been pointed out time and again, the only argument that can be made against this image is on NFCC grounds, not on graphic content, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Silver seren^C 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your additive list count is about undelete (ex: JoshuaZ, Jclemens, Hobit, and The Egyptian Liberal), something I can agree with, not about direct display in articles. Thus we get:

Encourage display (new): ~~Hobit, The Egyptian Liberal~~, DGG, Chzz, ~~Jclemens~~, Tarc, ~~JoshuaZ~~.

Neutral (new): Hobit, The Egyptian Liberal, Jclemens, JoshuaZ

Wishing direct DELETION (new) : Stifle, S Marshall, Electrojet2008, Future Perfect at Sunrise.

So we have 10 VS 10, with 10 people finding this photograph shocking, 10 people wanting textual description AND display it in the article. There IS a controversy, and one side expressing shock. Insist to keep the image directly display is disturbing for a good part of the readers. Yug (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not hide images on Wikipedia just because they are graphic. We either include them in an article or we do not and current consensus from the DRV is that it should be included, as we all must follow WP:NOTCENSORED. Silver seren^C 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I counted the voice on the DRV. DRV consensus is mainly on file conservation according to copyright law and uncensore rule. There isn't consensus on direct display : 10 VS 10. Ten are against, somes wait a consensus, and Ten are for direct display. And please, stop to wing the flag of "NOTCENSORED", it's not a magic card, and that's already win, we ALL agree to talk fully about the facts. That's not the question. The controversy is that we disagree of social norms, and what is acceptable to directly diplay in the public space. Half of the readers feel this image shocking or expressed the will of some kind of notifications. You can't just wipe them away. Yug (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's your own opinion on the beliefs of the editors that voted in the DRV. The DRV was not about whether the image should be hidden in a box. And you do not have consensus to hide it anyways. Wikipedia has nothing to do with following social norms, but presenting information in an encyclopedia and neutral manner. That image is highly important to the notability of the subject and we do not box images just because they are graphic. Silver seren^C 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's counting. When people refer to ethics or emotion to support deletion.

You now admit that the "DRV was not about whether the image should be hidden in a box", de facto following my former statement : voting for restoration is NOT voting for direct display. Thanks for your honnesty.

Wikipedia, yes, de facto follow social norms. In its wording, rules, users behavior, ... State the opposite is non-sense.

IP and Users removing the photograph will continue since half of the people expressing their opinion find the direct display without warning shocking. In real life, there is law regulating such shocking picture, previous warning are requested, or access are limited, and this is according to what the common public is able to stand.

While facts can't be censored (WP:NOTCENSORED), Wikipedia being a public space, it also de facto use such rules respecting readers. Respectful (WP:CONSENSUS) alternatives include textual description, warning notice and image box, warning notice and external link, and anatomic scheme. 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

However, you cannot make up a consensus on the issue of whether it should be hidden or not. You have to actually raise the issue and have other editors comment directly on it, not decide post facto on what their intentions were. If you're that adamant about this, then you should start an RfC on this talk page about it. Silver seren^C 07:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for keeping the image is to present all facts in an uncensored way, to make more people aware of the situation. However, a person easily disturbed by such content might then start to avoid reading any WP article talking about death or physical torture, for fear of accidentally seeing disturbing images. Wouldn't this cause the opposite of the desired goal? Melarish (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I have removed it from this section. I don't think we can use/keep non-free content in article talk pages. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Anyways, are you not going to weigh in on this discussion? Silverseren^C 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image itself has been an impetus/catalyst for the 2011 Egyptian revolt, then I think it is reasonable to make use of it in this "death of..." article to show exactly what the big deal was. I'll also note that we now have an IP removing the image; I wonder if someone left their sock drawer ajar... Tarc (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the picture of his corpse. It's highly graphic, quite disturbing, and entirely unnecessary to the article. It already has a perfectly good picture of him; this one adds nothing except shock value. Wikipedia exists to inform people, not shock them or gross them out. Besides, frankly, it shows a lack of decency and respect for the man himself. Would you want a picture of your corpse prominently displayed on Wikipedia after you die? How do you think his family feel about that? Robofish (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you, as the argument of the image being graphic and unnecessary was refuted at the Deletion Review here. The image is the main reason for the notability of the subject, as it is the image that gave recognition to him and sparked a world-wide outcry, which eventually led to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. The image is indispensable to the article. Silver seren^C 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NOTCENSORED and that this article needs the image. But, seriously, we can't put it in a drop-table? It really is so shocking that many people will not feel comfortable reading the article with that staring at them. And that is a non-trivial issue we should consider. Ocaasi (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like a path we shouldn't start going down, since we don't do that for other articles that have similarly graphic pictures. I don't want to set a standard for this sort of thing, since it would lower the quality and poignancy of a number of articles. Silver seren^C 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not aware of any other article that has anything quite as graphic. By the way, I note that the concern that I have expressed previously has still not been met – we still have no reliably sourced medical discussion about what it is we're actually seeing. And the article still had that misleading alt text (which I thought there had been a consensus to drop earlier). Well, whatever. I think a drop table would be a reasonable step for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text has already been changed (by you, I notice), and what is unsourced about the Aftermath section that specifically discusses the photo and its impact and even has comments from the Human Rights Watch? Silver seren^C 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt HRW counts as a reliable source about medical forensics. What I find strange is that we do have one reliable source from an actual forensic medical expert, and he is not talking about these things at all [1]. If what appears so obvious to us non-experts was actually equally obvious to the expert eye, namely that the distortions we are seeing are indeed effects of injuries sustained while alive, why was Dr Wahab not mentioning these obvious facts but instead talking about the need to measure his brain and all those other details? It very much sounds to me that he was seeing something significantly different from what most of us seem to believe we're seeing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is twofold for why he didn't specifically discuss it, I think. The first is that he wasn't able to personally see the body, so he didn't want to make any assumptions just based on photos. Medical experts are careful about these sort of things. Secondly, he didn't want to outright say that it was a murder and Saeed was beaten to death, since that would possibly get him in trouble with the government. Instead, he says that he thinks the autopsy should have been done better and certain things should have been checked for, subtly implying the belief that Saeed was indeed beaten. He would never just outright state it. Of course, that's just my interpretation. Silver seren^C 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Silverseren. The image itself is crucial to the notability of the subject and should be kept as is in the Death section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not explained in article.

The picture is not explained in the article. How was it distributed? Who took the picture? Did the protesters see this picture in a newspaper, on television, on a blog? It is a graphic picture that the article does not need if it was explained with words it would suffice. As it stands, the picture is grotesque and perhaps? added to sick out wikipedia users and shock people and is not backed by stated importance anywhere in the article. The other language versions do not use the picture, just the English one at present. Why the discrepancy?

The article specifically describes the importance of the picture in the Aftermath section. It is one of the main reasons that the subject is notable, which is why it is included in the article and cannot be properly substituted with plain words. As for your initial questions, if the answer is not given in reliable sources, then we cannot include it. It is not currently known who uploaded the picture, perhaps it was the forensic examiner or a clerk at that office, but we do know that it was distributed online. It was most likely seen first in blogs and other media of that sort. Silver seren^C 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]