![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
"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".
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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."
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"?
"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".
Done The metadata is now much better.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
08:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
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 [ [2]] 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)
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)
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 diff of my changes from the previous version.
Changes include:
Please take a look, and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Grollτech ( talk) 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
"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".
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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."
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"?
"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".
Done The metadata is now much better.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
08:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
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 [ [2]] 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)
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)
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 diff of my changes from the previous version.
Changes include:
Please take a look, and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Grollτech ( talk) 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
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)