Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 ambiguous. I count 17 Keep votes and 23 Delete votes. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, this article defaults to Keep. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some additional comments on the process:

  1. "Delete as recreation of previously deleted content" can not generally be used as an argument when the only prior deletions were speedy deletions. Speedy deletions are supposed to be non-controversial. The good-faith recreation of the article is often evidence that the deletion was, in fact, controversial.
  2. While there is general consensus that forked articles are bad for Wikipedia, the jury is still out on the use of this template trick. Notably, it avoids the maintenance problems that are inherent to forked articles. It will probably be appropriate to revisit the decision on this article after there has been suitable discussion and time for consensus to appear at Wikipedia:village pump#censorship and wikipedia.
  3. While a comment warning of a possible Wikipedia:sockpuppet is appreciated, history on this page has shown us that being overly aggressive (such as by using strikethrough on the comment) is too often perceived as an aggressive and personal attack.

[edit] Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)

Prior votes:

  1. Original VfD of forked version - November 18-23, 2004
  2. First VfD of this template trick - December 17-24, 2004
  • DELETE - It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to have censored pages on Wikipedia. What next, a page about politics censored of one particular viewpoint because some people might consider it offensive, or a page about the age of the earth censored of information about theories that do not confirm to the creationists view. DELETE DELETE DELETE Jooler
  • ABUSE OF VFD! It just survived a VfD NOT EVEN A WEEK AGO! this is CLEAR abuse of the VfD process. Alkivar 23:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It was nominated by the same person that time as well. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't realize that it was the same user. That's bad. If you aren't satisfied with the results of one vote you shouldn't renominate it immediatly. That's not how the VfD process is meant to work. Jeltz talk 10:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • This page was speedily deleted after I nominated it, then it was recreated once again, so this VFD is entirely valid. Jooler
          • Read the previous VfD. It was recreated before the last vote ended and the continued VfD decided that the recreated article should be kept. - Jeltz talk 22:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • By what right was it recreated after it was quite rightly speedily deleted? - That deletion process was flawed and consequently I have renominated it. Jooler 00:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Did you even read the previous VfD? —Korath (Talk) 01:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Yes, certainly. Did you even read why I and many others strongly believe that it should be deleted? Jooler 01:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • Immaterial, immediate relisting of this after it passed VfD consensus is ABUSE! there is no grey area here! Alkivar 04:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                    • The first abuse was the initial creation of this article which sets an unhealthy precedent. The second abuse was recreating the page after it was legitimatly voted to delete it in the initial instance. The third abuse was the recreation of this page after it was legitimately speedily deleted for the second time. The fourth abuse was the removal of the previous VFD debate during the holiday period when many people interested in this subject were away for the holidays. The fifth abuse is trying to shout down the valid procedure for the deletion of this page on technical grounds and not on any real justification for the page's existence in and of itself. Jooler 11:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                      • Pot, kettle. —Korath (Talk) 12:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                        • I'm bowled over by your debating skills. To quote Guybrush Threepwood "I am rubber you are glue". Jooler 12:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                        • The technical grounds are very important in this case. If it was common practice to do like you just did and relist surviving pages it would destroy the entire VfD process. That's why you can't doi this no matter if you are right or not. - Jeltz talk 18:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete delete delete. Actually, hasn't this been deleted before? Can we speedy delete as a re-creation? And, come to think of it, can we add "forks of existing articles" to the speedy deletion candidates? Isomorphic 09:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Apologies. I remembered the earlier Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures). I wasn't aware that this was an alternate display rather than a fork, or that it had just survived a VfD (although I note that opinion there was far from unanimous.) This shouldn't have been relisted on VfD, but I feel that more discussion is needed somewhere. This kind of thing would set an important precedent, and the opinions of a broad segment of the Wikipedia population should be sought. VfD regulars are not necessarilly a representative sample. Isomorphic 11:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • At the risk of feeding the troll, let me be the first to say keep. —Korath (Talk) 10:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No, it wasn't deleted before. A significantly different page by a similar name was. The deleted page was a fork. This page is just a view, and was subsequently itself listed on VfD and debated at some length, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. The result was keep. Andrewa 11:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I admire the technical solution, but this is still not the correct way of doing things. Delete. --fvw* 14:22, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can safely read it in work now, whereas uncensored I cannot --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Test page, problems with editing, does not render pictures correctly, duplication of material, breaks cache. This test page has made its point but isn't up to production standard and so should not be left around. There was no need to list this test page, just delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You believe this is a test page? That random keys were punched to produce an alternate presentation? Section editing is unaffected, incidentally. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This shouldn't have been relisted here since it just survived a vfd. I think that this could be rmeoved early from the vfd page if I'm not misstaken. - Jeltz talk 18:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: The VfD should be removed as it just ended VfD less than a week ago. DCEdwards1966 18:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Isn't this a mirror of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed with a different name? No vote yet. hfool 18:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No, it's not a mirror — it's the same page that has been moved to a better title (but perhaps still not a good title; I have no oppinion). Jeltz talk 19:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The edit seems to say it's just displaying the content of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. Looks like it'd be a little hard to search for as well, am I right? The link from Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse favors this page, but what is the prob;lem with linking directly to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed page? hfool 20:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: IMO it's not a good title, but the solution to that is to move it, not delete it. See talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). No change of vote. Andrewa 20:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with Extreme Prejudice. Not only is it a bad idea to carry censored versions, but they will inevitably fork and develop their own, possibly conflicting content. Wyss 21:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please look at the article before voting. It's no fork. It's a clever use of templates. Jeltz talk 10:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Wyss. Tuf-Kat 22:02, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Wyss. --Idont Havaname 23:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Mikkalai 23:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I thought this was deleted earlier. Megan1967 01:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think users should vote without prejudice toward the VfD process - if the process is being abused, it can be handled in other ways, and is in no way relevant to whether or not we should keep the article or delete it. ugen64 03:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Allowing an article to be relisted less than a week after it came off VfD is a sure way to destroy the VfD process. DCEdwards1966 03:21, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • The article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. I feel that the providing a separate "censored" version without the pictures can only have a political agenga. It it curious that of all the pages in Wikipedia this one should provide the incentive for someone to produce a separate page "to lessen the impact" of the article. The story of this article is the pictures. Without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumours of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about. Jooler 18:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And this article already survived VfD. Are you going to keep listing it until you get your way? DCEdwards1966 20:03, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) was deleted after a majority of people voted for its deletion. It was then recreated at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed, albeit using some jiggery pokery with templates. I nominated this page for deletion. Quite rightly it was speedily deleted. We all then went off for the Chirstmas break and then suddenly it is recreated once more at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). This page has been legitimately deleted twice and has been recreated with minor modifications. I see nothing wrong with my nomination under these circumstances. I believe with every fibre of my body that under no cicumstances should we be in the business of self-censoring Wikipedia to satisfy a political agenda, under this principle I cannot support the concept of this page existing in Wikipedia which is why I have nominated it for deletion. Jooler 00:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • The article was incorrectly speedy deleted around 23:00 on December 17 and undeleted less than four hours later. You seem to be making up "facts" to further your argument. DCEdwards1966 03:11, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
              • Hey dude - In what way was it speedily deleted "incorrectly" - I'm making nothing up - it was legitimately deleted - I went on holiday and the page was back when I came back, but at a different title. But forget that - address the issue what is the legitimacy of this page? Jooler
                • Hey dude. This article was not a recreation of a deleted article. There is no content in this article that was in the deleted article. This article was incorrectly speedy deleted because User:Neutrality assumed that it was a recreation. As for the legitimacy of this page: It survived VfD less than a week ago. If that result doesn't stand then the VfD process is meaningless. DCEdwards1966 03:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • In terms of the content displayed to a user reading the article it was a perfect copy of the previous article that had an overwhleming majority voting for its deletion. The fact that it was created by using a template and that when you press the edit button you got a different bunch of text what it had previously is irrelevent. You are hoisted by your own petard because using your argument the first deletion should have stood. Anyway you stil haven't presented your opinion on why the censored version should remain. Jooler
      • The whole point is that it shouldn't have been relisted after surviving VfD. The value of the article has no bearing on this. It was determined that the article should be kept. End of discussion. DCEdwards1966 04:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
        • No. Your point is incorrect. It shouldn't have been re-created after it was legitimately deleted in the first place. Bye Bye Jooler
  • Bugger this. If it's as you say, just speedy the thing and stop listing it here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP, but rename. It's not censored but "Work safe". The only thing that's missing is the pictures correct? Alternatively one could remove the pictures from the original article and turn them into links, but I think the current solution is better.--Sketchee 03:08, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • What does "work safe" mean? - there is abosultely no way that the pictures should be removed from the original article - the pictures are the story. Jooler
    • To make any Wikipedia page "work-safe" in this manner, simply browse it without downloading images. There is no need for Wikipedia to get involved in this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Every reason has already been given, no need to repeat User:Clngre 03:48, 31 Dec 2004
  • Delete there is no room for "censored" on Wikipedia. If you are looking for Abu Gharib at work you should know what to expect. -Ld | talk 05:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have said, there should be no censorship on Wikipedia. In this particular case you are looking at a article that starts:In 2004, reports emerged of numerous instances of abuse, torture, and murder of prisoners. Evil Monkey → Talk 05:29, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Censored versions of articles are fine, in my opinion, if clearly marked as such and adhering to NPOV, and this is a brilliant use of transclusion to create parallel versions of articles that could be useful in many other circumstances. Imagine, for example, having a math article at two different levels of reader skill, or having a shortened version of a long article that cuts out some peripheral diversions. On the other hand, it's also an incredibly awkward hack that doesn't generalize and might not work forever (I still can't believe it works at all). I tried to do better, but could find nothing (at least without a stylesheet change). This page is a critical first step, also providing a motivating example of why it's useful, but I think further progress will require software support. Deco 09:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Factual material belongs on Wiki. Does any national have the right to remove factual information which is merely an embarrassment? User:83.70.225.245
    • this vote is invalid for 2 reasons, firstly it is by an unregistered user and secondly, given the nature of the comment, it appears that the person is unaware of the uncensored version - Jooler 12:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC).
      • You could be right, but you are not the person who determines whether someone's opinion is valid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • That is correct - but nevertheless the vote is invalid because it comes from an unregistered user. I have left a message on hth talk page of the IP regarding this. To keep the vote here without the strikethru could lead to it being accidentally counted Jooler Please stop trying to tell people that their votes are invalid.
          • Appropriate weighting will be applied, with or without strikethrough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No censorship on Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 14:25, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This article deals with the torture of prisoners; anyone offended by the pictures should be equally offended by the written material. It's a natural progression, then, from censoring one kind of content to censoring things related to that content Masked Loser 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I say Keep, but with a different title, as "censored" is a word with strong negative value, and isn't exactly the case, since the complete version exists and is linked at the start of the article. Still, moving to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (safe) might be the best choice. \ wolfenSilva / 07:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: A better solution might be to not display any of the pictures and move the article to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures). DCEdwards1966 07:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Tony says, if schools want to view the page without pictures, they can turn images off in their browsers. Or say 'hello' to the real world. Dan100 11:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Invalid VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 21:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Serves a definite purpose, doesn't require any extra editing effort. "Censored" isn't the right word; "without images" might be more appropriate. Zetawoof 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I must disagree with you on this note, as the article in question does actually contain images. Only certain images which may not qualify as "work safe" have been excluded from the page. —RaD Man (talk) 21:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • What does "work safe" mean? Who has defined this term?, and who decides what qualifies as "work safe" and what doesn't? Also, on what basis are you making the claim that this vfd is invalid? Jooler
  • Keep. Both version. The 'original' pictures were probably obtained from the media and so would already have been fuzzied out. --PoleyDee 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Andre (talk) 21:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely delete. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 22:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! I don't what is up with these anti-censorship campaigns. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 02:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Censorship conflicts directly with NPOV. If we're ignoring NPOV we might as well all give up on Wikipedia now. --Ngb 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Censorship sets such a bad precedent. --Ngb 14:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be about censorshipsheridan 01:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete Censorship is bad mojo. RMG 01:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The repeated creation of this article reeks of "not wanting to see what I don't want to believe"–type of compulsive denial. While people are entitled to wear as many blinds as they like, Wikipedia is not here to cater for pathological ignorance, religiously motivated or otherwise. Oh, and about requiring a mandatory hiatus before re-VfDing: I proposed such a policy some time ago, but the vote collapsed and AFAIK no such policy has been passed since. If there is a democratically endorsed policy against re-VfDing, then I'll be the first to support it. That said, I'm not certain if this would even count as a resubmission given the speedy deletion and recreation, etc. Ropers 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It was not resubmitted... it was undeleted. big difference, it was speedy deleted under false circumstances as a resubmit which it clearly was not, the person responsible for its speedy even agreed he was wrong after the undeletion.  ALKIVAR™ 05:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cleduc 06:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice - if you're looking up the prisoner abuse, you KNOW about the pictures. You KNOW the content may well be disturbing. Who are we to censor things? What next? Shall I create a fork of Sexual intercourse with everything replaced by euphenisms in case any kids run across it? I don't think so. We are not censors. We are NOT here to provide protection, we are here to provide information and we do so in an UNBIASED, NPOV manner. To censor is to inherently take a POV. We can't do it in the spirit of the 'Pedia. Delete, and if this ever comes up again you can consider my vote to be delete. PMC 07:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The basis for the creation of this censored version, as far as I can tell is that the pictures are disturbing. Of course they are, it's a disturbing subject. The nudity is censored in the pictures, so I don't see any problems with the original article. Censoring any further is in violation of the spirit of NPOV. -ÅrУnT 08:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for all the reasons given above. --Neo 19:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See my comments on the December VfD. I'm on vacation and just happened to check this. It's not a test page, fork, or any more POV than the warning message that's been sitting on the article for months. It was requested by several, and has been called useful by others; keep it. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to take issue with your claim that it's not some kind of test page. Just try visiting it and then try to edit. Even when you do succeed in editing, I believe it's true to say (unless it's fixed in 1.4) that the cache is broken so you may not see changes until you manually purge. For these two reasons it cannot be regarded as ready for prime-time. It's a proof of concept, no more. I produced a similar one, on a slightly different technique developed by someone else, on talk:clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. No forks. Sets a very, very bad precedent---there are plenty of articles in danger of being similarly forked. Better to turn off image display in your browser. Don't change the encyclopedia to fit your notion of what is or is not good taste; there are other, better ways. grendel|khan 02:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a fork. The main article is not censored. This page is presented only to those who look for it. -Key45 00:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • String delete'--Jirate 16:30, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Keep This has survived VFD once. Samboy 23:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_%28censored%29_a5ff.html"