This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New York City: Public Transportation Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Various videos, images and non news articles bring to light that the cops strolled around for several minutes instead of putting out the fire using fabric or any other means. "May people online expressed outrage" can be rephrased to indicate more of a factual tone rather than giving an impression of an opinionated/ subjective rage

1. Title- Outrage over 'coward' NYPD officers who did NOTHING as illegal migrant burned woman alive on subway ^[1]

2. Title- Video shows NYPD officers standing by as woman set aflame burns to death^[2]

3. Mentions within the body of the article about cops ^[3]

1260918645w (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the image keep getting changed? The NFF is the most accurate depiction. E_F⁵ 22:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the previous image was more accurate as it shows Zapeta-Calil watching the women as mentioned in the article. Ardnieu (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know if that is Zapeta. E_F⁵ 22:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sources desribe the left individual in the image as Zepeta-Calil or the suspect

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/horrific-video-shows-suspect-watching-woman-burn-to-death-on-train-after-he-allegedly-set-her-on-fire/news-story/66ae0fe4c01428944e8326fcd1857080

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/horrific-video-shows-guatemalan-immigrant-sebastian-zapeta-calmly-watching-woman-burn-to-death-after-setting-her-ablaze-101734943298006.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14221651/subway-fire-migrant-killer-nyc.html

https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/sebastian-zapeta-calil-idd-as-illegal-migrant-accused-of-setting-woman-on-fire-riding-nyc-subway/ Ardnieu (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we assume complete innocence until he is proven guilty. For now, Zepata is not the committer of the crime. E_F⁵ 22:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping previous image and changing caption to identify him as the suspect fixes that issue, as Zapeta-Calil has been identified as the man in the images Ardnieu (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the image should go in the "suspect" section. The infobox image is there because it's too big to fit anywhere else. E_F⁵ 22:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image in the lead of her on fire is terrifying and distasteful and violates WP:BLP as to the victim. It should be removed. I am not a big fan of censorship, but showing her being burned alive is just plain sick folks, and it violates her rights as a deceased person to avoid this kind of graphic imagery. KindHorta (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KindHorta: You're aware that Wikipedia is not censored, and that BLP doesn't apply as she's dead, right? E_F⁵ 13:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies for at least a year(WP:BDP. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but how does that apply to the image? The caption never says that the man is Zepata-Calil. E_F⁵ 13:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added a blurred version which was removed, since that's what y'all appear to want. :) E_F⁵ 13:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also BLP to consider with reference to the victim/her family, who may not want her burning body posted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, hence the blurred version. Then again, Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell… E_F⁵ 13:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Self"-immolation. They did it to themselves and wanted people to see it. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the pushback against the blurred version? It doesn't show the victim, satisfying their need for privacy, while still visualizing the event. E_F⁵ 13:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no amount of blurring that can conceal that the image is of the victim being burned alive. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the full CCTV video at Killing of Brian Thompson, photos of mass shooters with firearms in high schools, and other things. The blur is enough in my opinion, but feel free to get another opinion, as I'm not being swayed. E_F⁵ 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with the article in front of me; issues with other articles should be discussed there. That said, the image of the shooter in 2023 Lewiston shootings does not show his bullets hitting his victims. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm giving examples of times where graphic imagery is included in Wikipedia articles with community consensus, which is completely relevant here. Do you think Brian Thompson's family likes the video? Probably not. Is it included for historical purposes? Sure is. The blurred version looks fine, is my point. "No amount of blurring hides someone dying" seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT-y, at least to me. Anyways, I'll step back and enjoy Christmas instead of arguing about people being burned alive in subways. E_F⁵ 13:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do think it is appropriate to remove the image of the victim being burned. She wasn't a public figure (nor has she been identified for days after the incident), so I can see why it's distasteful to display such an image. Thanks to NYC transit editors, we already have many images of the station and the F route; we can use these instead. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the blurred version?? This is my third time bringing it up; with the only reason for objection being "No amount of blurring can show someone dying" which obviously is false as news agencies blur images specifically to avoid gore. E_F⁵ 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred or not, I think it would still be a violation of WP:BDP. According to that page, extensions of BLP "would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime." In this case, the victim was indeed killed in what can be considered a gruesome crime. For a similar reason, it would typically be in bad taste to show someone being decapitated or shot, even if it were blurred, if that person was not already a public figure. I'll leave it here, but I just wanted to give my two cents on the subject, namely that I agree with 331dot and KindHorta with regards to the image. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also mention public figures because some articles, like Assassination of John F. Kennedy, do include images of their subjects dying. However, since (for example) Kennedy was a public figure whose assassination was widely witnessed, reported, and analyzed, it may make sense to include such images, unlike for articles where the victim wasn't a public figure. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news agency and news agencies are not bound by WP:BLP. Even here, BLP will not apply in six months to a year or so.. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The victim has been identified as Debrina Kawam. [1][2] I have updated the as article to reflect that. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Alexysun (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are NYPD released images of the suspect CC BY and eligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons/use on Wikipedia? Alexysun (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some New York City Police Department (NYPD) images are in the public domain, but others are protected by copyright. You need to check if the image in question has a copyright notice. Most of the released images are free. KindHorta (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-1989 works are automatically copyrighted and do not require a copyright notice. I don't see any mention of a release of rights on the NYPD website. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google AI says some of the NYPD images are public domain. Not certain how you determine whether individual images are copyrighted or released into public domain though. Someone should probably call them during business hours to find out how this is done. KindHorta (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"can nypd images be used on wikipedia page" on Google AI reports the following: Yes, images of the New York Police Department (NYPD) can be used on Wikipedia pages if they meet certain conditions, such as licensing or fair use: Licensing. Some NYPD images are licensed under Creative Commons or other licenses. For example, the Flag of the New York City Police Department.svg requires attribution and sharing alike. The NYPD-SUV.jpg allows redistribution and modification, but requires the copyright notice to be included. The NYPD Police Car (27720138692).jpg is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic, which allows sharing and remixing. Fair use. Images that meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria can be uploaded to English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Public domain. Images that are in the public domain can be used on Wikipedia. Works published before January 1, 1929 are in the public domain in the US. KindHorta (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]