Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was - kept

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed
I believe that an encyclopedia should be as user-friendly as possible. Already we have a disclaimer on the article informing readers that they might be offended, so there's nothing lost by allowing them to choose a different version. Indeed, the reason that the forked "(no pictures)" article was created was a request on the Village Pump. To forbid this version is to reduce the functionality of Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke  05:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE - This page was already voted on for deletion when it was at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) (see Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) - and the vote was something like  25 vs 3 voting for deletion. Yet here it is back again - albeit using some jiggery pokery with templates to remove the pictures. I still think it should be deleted. I see no reason to censor this encylopaedia. Also this is using a sub-page in Wikipedia: namespace and it was agreed some time ago that subpages shouldn't be used. Jooler 21:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is my vote in the event the subpage is ever nominated: Keep. Unlike the VfD on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures), this page is not a fork. Basically, it uses the article as a template and inserts a template parameter into potentially offensive images' tags that makes them error out. See the contents of this page for yourself. There's nothing but a header here. Like VfD templates, section editing works normally from the "pictures suppressed" version, and anyone wishing to edit the entire article is told by a comment to go to the article itself. Thus, only one article exists; there is no forking.
 * And move. I didn't realize that about subpages. Cool Hand Luke  04:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) (No subpages). Transcluding the actual article so no forking is necessary is a great idea, and I think we should offer such versions of articles if that's what people want, as long as the potentially offensive is viewable if desired we are not censoring wikipedia. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 22:56, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it . Wyss 23:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I speedy deleted it as a reincarnation of a deleted article. See candidates for speedy deletion, case #5. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:02, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The majority of previous "delete" votes cited as their major objection the difficulty keeping the articles in synch. Cool Hand Luke's technical solution appears to have addressed those concerns, making this is a fundamentally different article.  I vote to undo the speedy and allow the article to be voted on again.  (Abstaining on the article for now.)  Rossami (talk) 23:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on votes for undeletion. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:09, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. We're not undeleting that article, and I have no desire to. This is not a recreation of deleted material. The content of this subpage is no more than seven lines of code for template substitution. The last article was deleted for forking, and this solution adresses that issue. We don't speedy delete improved rewrites on other articles, so if you'd mind? People need to know what they are voting on here, as it's radically different than before. Unspeedied. Cool Hand Luke  04:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with this article being speedy deleted. Lets not beat a dead horse.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've had this debate before. A good Wikipedia article illustrates its subject matter, and if you don't care to look at the images that can be handled with browser settings. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 00:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. This has already been voted on. Martg76 02:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tell me where this has been voted on:

Cool Hand Luke  04:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When cast my original vote, the content of the page was just "&#12387;&#12387;&#65346;". Keep. Martg76 15:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Support a new vote (obviously) and oppose speedy, which appears to have been undone. This is an important new argument, and so the matter deserves reconsideration. Support a move to eliminate the subpage. Andrewa 04:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with MGMs interpretation of where this article should eventually be used, no subpages.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Cool Hand Luke  04:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as all links from other articles are to the uncensored version. It might also be a good idea to protect this page. DCEdwards1966 06:28, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep as mgm's suggestion. A creative solution to a thorny problem. Why alienate people just to prove a point?Dr Zen 07:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep as per many school districts rules regarding nudity, the main uncensored version is considered unuseable in a classroom environment. This is a nifty hack to suppress the images. Anything that makes wiki more useable in a classroom setting is a definate bonus in my book. Alkivar 08:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep this is not a forked article, and User:Cool Hand Luke should be commended for his nice bit of code. This opens up the wikipedia to a whole new audience.  Although I agree that the pictures are the story in this case, this version has allowed me to show this to a home-school group and has allowed at least 6 different public school classes to see this, that I know of.  That's 250 more viewers than otherwise possible, I'd estimate conservatively that at least 500,000 more people will read this full story than would see it with the picttures.  This use of as it has been called "jiggery-pokery" is actually a quite elegant hack, and good for a semi-permanent solution.  This adds function to wikipedia without detracting from it. (This was posted by User:Pedant who forgot to sign his vote Alkivar 18:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)) (sorry, thanks Alkivar) Pedant 17:40, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with DCEdwards. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:53, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Impressive hack! Fredrik | talk 18:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, agreeing with the comments in all keep votes. Samaritan 19:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Cool Hand Luke's solution. --JuntungWu 02:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the correct way of handling censorship in the few cases it might be needed. Clever solution. Jeltz 15:58, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems a good compromise solution (at the new location of course). Shane King 00:39, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cool solution, User:Cool Hand Luke. Jayjg 00:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's a neat idea, but it is still self-censorship. I feel that a tagging system tagging the article in a category, like Category:Potentially Offensive Material would allow for a useful and NPOV solution, as I have discussed at length at Talk:Clitoris. I find this solution useful, except it doesn't change the fact that we ARE censoring ourselves, which I feel to be non-NPOV, even if we do provide an uncensored version. However, since I don't think leaving this article around does any huge or permant harm, I won't vote for its deletion at this time. Here is an analogy: TV stations rate their shows so that people can control what they are watching easily with a V-CHIP. They don't however go out of their way to censor themselves, since this requires extra work on their part. If we were to categorize potentially offensive items, then this would provide the mechanisim for someone to censor them out themselves, and would have the added benifit on allowing anyone to see what is in that catagory. Now, outside of all of this, the (no pictures) extension on the name is a misnomer, there is a "picture;" a map of Iraq. Maybe the extension (censored) would be better?   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete'. By keeping this page, Wikipedia is making a statement on the alleged unacceptability, in the context of an encyclopedia, of images of  "nude, abused, and deceased persons." The template also makes a POV statement to the effect that these images are "morbid".  Let those who want to do this kind of thing produce a bowdlerized fork.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how you can call offering an option de facto calling nudity morbid. The point as I see it to Wikipedia is to educate people on many topics, and therefore opening it to as many outlets is probably the primary goal of Wiki. This merely enhances wiki's acceptance in places it would not be allowed before. Catholic schools for instance (having gone to catholic schools I can assure you in its uncensored form this would NEVER have been acceptable although the topic may have been broached). I believe this sort of template censoring should be default part of ALL pages which have disclaimers necessary at the top of the page, and linked to as PART of the disclaimer. In other words make this a de facto policy. We're not removing nor commenting on the content just offering an alternative to those who would most likely be forced to use an alternative. Alkivar 06:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Firstly I think you have misunderstood my use of the word morbid. I do not call anything morbid here.  The word is in the template currently at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.  It says, with bold letters, that the article contains morbid photographs.  That is a POV statement.
 * Secondly I do not accept that it is Wikipedia's business to modify its content so as to "enhances wiki's acceptance in places it would not be allowed before." This argument could be used to justify bowdlerization of Wikipedia at source to cater for the wishes of the government of China.  But such bowdlerization is not necessary.  The government of China is quite at liberty to take the content of Wikipedia and doctor it to its own purposes.  Likewise the Roman Catholic Church.  What I am saying is that we should not do it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Can't understand why some don't want the project to be available to a wider audience. The original article is there. BTW, since when were all descriptive words "POV"? Next we won't be allowed to call the sun "bright" or say the sea is salty.Dr Zen 07:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The content of the project is already available free to anyone who wants to use it, under the GFDL. Doctoring our articles does not change this in any way.
 * The sun is bright, that is a fact. The sea is salty, that is a fact.  The photographs are morbid, that is an opinion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony: I edited the header to de-bold it and qualify with "potentially"&mdash;anyone can fix these kinds of NPOV problems. I didn't write that text to begin with; this was the pre-existing disclaimer. The only words I added were "for a version without these pictures see..." I just barely created this solution on December 5, and didn't want to disturb the underlying article very much. Pop quiz: when did the article gain a bold disclaimer about morbid photographs? Answer: June 30. Cool Hand Luke  09:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I don't view POV problems as a reason for deletion, but I did mention this to highlight the fact that the selection of this particular page for that solution is inherently POV. As I discussed elsewhere, there are hundreds of reasons why an individual might not want to view pictures and none of them are dealt with appropriately by the site designer guessing which photos will cause offence and producing an ad hoc workaround.  All graphical web browsers since NCSA Mosaic ten years ago provide the user with complete control over whether he or she sees images.  In Internet Explorer, you do this by deselecting "View Images" in Tools|Internet Options->Advanced->Multimedia.  In Mozilla Firefox you do it by deselecting Load Images in Tools|Options->Web Features.  In Firefox, you can also selectively block image sources, just right mouse button over a Wikipedia image and you will see a menu option to "block images from upload.wikimedia.org".  Select that and you get Wikipedia with all the screen furniture (which is on commons) but without the pictures in the articles. I won't be grumpy if your workaround demo isn't deleted, but I don't think applying it piecemeal like this is a solution. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised. Why? Dr Zen 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a clever bit of coding, but a terrible precedent. Why should just one Wikipedia article have a censored version that removes information some people may find objectionable, when there are other articles this same logic could be applied to? Bryan 03:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact it has not been applied to others is irrelevant, as this template has only been in existance about 2 weeks. Given time I've got 0 doubt it will be applied to others equally. I think this should be the de facto rule whenever images of dead bodies, nudity, etc... are involved just to keep a useable version for public libraries (which btw are denied access to this article!) try it at your local public library internet terminal you'll likely find it blocked by Net Nanny or some other filter. Alkivar 04:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.