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

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed

• DELETE - This page was already voted on for deletion when it was at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) (see Wikipedia: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.
  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)
  • 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|Ливай | ☺]] 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:

    {{:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse|suppress image=-5px|morbid warning=</font></div><div class="boilerplate metadata" id="violence" style="background: #dff; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px">''This is a censored version of the article, which does not include potentially offensive photographs depicting nude, abused, and deceased persons. For the complete version of this article see [[Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse]].''</div><font color=white>}} <!--To edit this page, you must edit the uncensored article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse or use section editing. This censored page is derived from "Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse" --> Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • When cast my original vote, the content of the page was just "っっｂ". 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. —[[User:Radman1|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))

• 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)