Talk:Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh/Photograph of corpse
Disturbing image[edit]
Do we really have to show the disturbing photo of the corpse on this article? How does it specifically elevate the content of the article or help convey the information in it? This photo is not only disturbing but also inappropriate for underage people and others who may come and read this article. I think it should be removed. Mar4d (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do we seriously have to go through another Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed? Egyptian Liberal even took the time to get this image put into the public domain so that we wouldn't have the same issues as last time. The picture is important and descriptive. It is discussed directly in the sources and provides a focus for the arguments between the protesters and the government on how Ali died. SilverserenC 15:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CENSOR suggests "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." This picture adds nothing to the knowledge of the reader: it illustrates without explaining. As such, it is not essential to the article. Once it is not essential, it is a judgement call. The judgement that it is poor taste is my one.
- Good god, are gonna does this dance every freaking article? The goes back to Nada's article and picture of her corpse. It very tiring to be honest. I image where he got hit, him bleeding from where he got hit which supports the claim on why he died. Im sure to get a hold of the family to avoid the dance on more time. And PS: Ali's sister gave me permission to use it on this article to if the family is ok with it, I dont why we have a problem. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- This material is clearly illustrating the subject in a encyclopedic manner; in no way I perceive it focusing on the offensiveness itself (it isn't intended to *just* shock, after all). I see it as a good illustration of the facts outlined in prose. And I might add that it helped me to understand the issue better. --187.40.241.221 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CENSOR suggests "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." This picture adds nothing to the knowledge of the reader: it illustrates without explaining. As such, it is not essential to the article. Once it is not essential, it is a judgement call. The judgement that it is poor taste is my one.
I came across this article by accident. I'd like to suggest the image be hidden, as has been done to other images not suitable for all Wikipedia users. I don't think it should be removed, but people should be able to choose whether or not they want to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbo5150 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- We don't hide images. I'm not sure what other images or articles that you think about, but this issue is the exact same as the one with Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed and the overwhelming consensus was that we don't hide images just because they are graphic. SilverserenC 16:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you think we should also hide photos like this or this. SilverserenC 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is completely valid. The image of Emmett Till is another example of a graphic and confronting image that changed the world. I think the image of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh is a similar image of profound social importance. It should not be removed from the article under any circumstances. However, all of your examples are historical whereas this is a recent event. Displaying this image in an unrestricted form may suggest it is being used to promote a political or social agenda. Wikipedia needs to remain an objective resource when describing current events— Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbo5150 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)