Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Why on earth are we including this article on Wikipedia? It means duplicated effort, and it means that we are forking a story, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I mean, how are we going to keep them in sync? Besides which, the photos are out now. Sure, we should probably add a disclaimer to the main story, but that's the extent of it. I hope this isn't the way that we are going to go with other stories, like clitoris. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: if the only reason for the article's deletion is the extra work needed to keep the two articles synchronized, I volunteer to maintain this article (once a week or so). Re: several users: Yes, it is possible to turn off display of images in the browser options, but it is inconvenient for the user (not to mention that many users don't know how to do it). I agree with Rhymeless here. Re: Ferkelparade: The links are no problem; a decision should be made which article should the links should lead to, and then consistently followed. (It doesn't particularly matter if other articles point to the uncensored version; the pictures are more than a page down from the top.) And what problem would two versions of the article pose in searching? - Mike Rosoft 14:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to add the vandalism also? I mean, really, it's silly. You can't replicate the edits exactly, its just not feasible or possible. And are you going to do it on all the other articles where duplications are done? Nice thought, though, it's just not something you are going to be able to do very well at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, we have templates to deal with this. Gazpacho 02:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Really? Which one? — Mateo SA | talk 23:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • or don't we? I thought I saw one at the top of some sexual organ articles. I'll withdraw the vote, but really this sort of thing calls for a way of tagging the article, not forking it. Gazpacho 02:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (the original article) does have a warning notice at the top, if that's what you're talking about. — Mateo SA | talk 05:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Not a valid fork, and I smell an edit war behind its origin. That's not a good solution. Geogre 02:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. People can turn images off in their browser if they're afraid they might see something they don't like. --Improv 03:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, duplication of data. —Florescentbulb 04:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any harm, and someone apparently requested this. (On a side note, I like the new VfD setup.) Maurreen 09:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain, until we hear from more users from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page, at whose talk page I've pointed to this vote. Samaritan 11:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• A useful measure. (Similarly, I am not happy about an explicit image appearing in the clitoris article.) Keep. - Mike Rosoft 11:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You see, this I don't get. You are looking up the article clitoris, yet you don't want to see one? wtf? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not? I can very well imagine that! Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember seeing a drawing of female external genitalia in a sexuology book. An explicit photo would be too much, I believe. (At least, when featured directly in the article; a link to it is appropriate.) How is the topic handled in other encyclopedias or other related books? (And where are we going to stop? Should the infamous goatse picture be included in the goatse.cx article?) - Mike Rosoft 14:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Makes no sense to split off articles like this. Apart from the synching issues with two articles, how would we handle searches for Abu Ghraib and links to the articles from other articles? This is not a working solution -- Ferkelparade π 13:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplication of information. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 18:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NO duplicate articles. RickK 21:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• "No pictures" is a browser option. Those who don't want pictures can turn them off. Delete. — mendel ☎ 22:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this is redundant (IMHO). Agree with Mendel. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 00:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete if you don't want to see the pictures, just turn them off temporarily in your browser. Wolfman 01:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad precedent, "no pictures" is a browser option. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:48, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• I was one of the ones that said this might be a good idea, although I wasn't one of the ones who initially suggested it. And by the way, I'd imagine many computer users have no idea how to turn off pictures in their browser. Keep. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• However, maybe we could create a page explaining how to turn off images, and include a link to that article in the warning notice. — Mateo SA | talk 05:31, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to accept that idea. Is it possible to make some sort of scripting control within a page to turn off that only page's images? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete wow, my first delete vote. Forking of articles is not what wikipedia is about, there are many other projects that will support this, but not here. (note: User:The bellman forgot his sig here -- wolfman).
• Wikipedia is not—and I sincerely hope never will be—bowdlerized. Delete. -- Hadal 07:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. →Raul654 07:55, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A bad idea from a practical perspective, and also philosophically; this is an article about an inherently offensive subject, we shouldn't go out of our way to make it more palatable simply for the sake of making it more palatable. Bryan 08:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for now. We need a way to deal with this kind of thing, but forking an article is not the solution, because it needs to keep in sync. BTW, someone with a decent browser can block images self. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe there needs to be away to turn off the images, but making a duplicated page is not an option. Not onyl does it mean that you duplicate data, the two pages also needs to be synchronized manually. Jeltz 12:44, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
• Delete. No bowdlerized forks!! Jayjg 17:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Bowdlerization is bad. -- Karada 19:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If they don't want to see pictures of Abu Ghraib, they should either quit looking in Wikipedia or turn off images in their browser.Kaldari 19:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: How about a Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no text)? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:32, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
• Delete. no forks allowed --Jiang 01:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If we want to support such a feature, it ought to be in software, not manually implemented. Keeping two articles in sync in a nightmare. --Delirium 01:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicating articles is senseless. DCEdwards1966 03:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Why would you look up Abu Grahib, if you were offended by Abu Grahib!? Similarly if you are offended by clitorises, you hardly think, 'hey! i might go on wikipedia and have a look at an article about clitorises.' I agree totally with the user who said why make it more palatable for the sake of being more palletable? No potentially offensive images are on the top page, so one has to be genuinly interested and read on to find the pictures. By this stage it really is their own fault if they see something they didn't want to. Wifki 07:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope people will be offended. This is not like an R-rated movie, you know, with director's cuts and continental versions. It happened in real life, with real people. I hope that everybody who sees these images will start thinking on where trading (others') Freedom for (your own) Security will lead. dab 16:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.