Talk:Kim Hyung-chil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn. |
| Stub | This page has been rated as stub-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
I know this is nit-picky, but most news sources I have seen cite the eighth jump, not the sixth as being the site of the accident - though to be fair, I have seen a couple of reports cite the sixth. ludahai 魯大海 07:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- How many jumps are there in total? If there are for instance 30 jumps, we can rename it with stating he fell in one of the first jumps for instance. If there are 12-15 jumps he fell somewhere half way. SportsAddicted | discuss 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the image of Kim on his horse at the jump. I find it extremely unpleasent, distasteful and disrespectful to be presented with an image of the man a moment before his fatal crushing. Death is not a spectator sport. Toby Douglass 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, I think it's important to have some kind of context. The picture does seem to do that. Similar pictures or worst have been used elsewhere, and Wikipedia is not censored. – Chacor 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see his death is a particularly rights-worthy issue. He died in an accident; it's not the case he was politically suppressed, etc; we are not loosing or censoring information by not carrying this photo. As such, I argue the image should go on the basis of respect for the deceased and also on the basis of respecting the sensitivities of readers. If on the wiki page for suicide there was a graphic image of a someone who had been hit by a bus, I would argue that should go - it would be gratitious, disrespectful and deeply unpleasent to readers who hardly expect to see something so unpleasent when visiting a page. Similarly, this poor chap had a terrible accident. We are not a tabloid newspaper; we don't need a photo of it; and I have no wish to see what appears to be a photo of him in the instant before his fatal injury. I find that deeply unpleasent and I don't see there's any meaningful benefit from it - I can read the text on the page perfectly well, and without feeling disgusted by the disrespect show in such a voyeuristic photo. It reminds me of the 7/7 bus bombings in the UK. One of the tabloids carried on its front page an actual frame of video where the people in a bus were in the very process of being blown apart. I was sickened. Toby Douglass 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I argue censorship here is a red herring. I have no objection to the text or the description of events and the course of events described is in no way modified or masked by removal of the photo. What censorship is occuring? if removing this photo is censorship, if a photo of his crushed, bloody body was present on this page and I objected on exactly the same basis - disrespectful, unnecessary and unpleasent - would you call that censorship? if you did, I would say you have failed to appreciate the balance between sensitivity, consideration, respect and necessary information; and if you did not then I would say to you that we differ in what we consider necessary; that in this case, there is no meaningful value in a photo of this chap moments before he died. Finally, as an aside, I'm not much impressed by your use of "sic". Specifically pointing out typos or spelling errors is petty and deliberately rude and as such does not leave me with the impression that you are particularly capable of understanding the issue here. Toby Douglass 19:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
