Talk:Censorship/Archive 3

Picture

The picture used for the Wikipedia series on Censorship apparently displays a negative bias against the notion of censorship. It is rather an alarmist image: one of burnt books, and is not appropriate in an encyclopædia whose task is to elicit an informative, neutral view. PETF 12:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Do we even need a picture to illustrate censorship anyway? Either way, the current one has to go. Shinigami27 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that the blacking out of a Department of Defense (DoD) document as a bad example of censorship. The DoD does not do this to censor but to safeguard security both of a national and personal security. (frmr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmrjrhd87 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the rationale, it is still technically censorship. However if you want to propose a change of the image you should do it on Template talk:Censorship, because the image is part of that template. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation, for photographing caskets, inappropriate

I deleted two references, using the example of the government's policy of not showing photos of caskets from the Iraq War, because it is not a very good example of censorship.

Calling a military policy, of not allowing American caskets to be photographed, government censorship is somewhat stretching the definition of the term. The Wiki sections where this example was used were either inappropriate or already had a better example. In the context that the caskets issue was used, as an example of censorship used in the Iraq War, is an incorrect narrowing of a policy that dates back to 1991. This is not an issue attributable to the second Iraq War. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/23/iraq/main613365.shtml. It's usage, as written, was factually incorrect because it was being cited as an issue of the last war.

It is a bad example for defining censorship because revealing the photos did little to change the perception of the war since the number of dead soldiers was routinely reported from the start of the war. The rationale for the policy had nothing to do with keeping information from the public. It was strictly an internal policy, to respect the families of the dead soldiers, and is not inconsistent with funeral homes not routinely allowing photographers into their establishment to snap photos of the dead. This policy did not have the strength of law behind it and nobody went to jail for publishing the photos. That again points to this being a policy issue rather than outright censorship. Censorship, performed by governments, has legal penalties. In this specific case, the only punishment was firing the government worker, who violated policy for photographing the caskets. The government had no rights to take punitive action against the news outlets that published the photos. If a funeral home employee published photos of that mortuary's dead on a website, that employee would likewise probably be fired. There are so many better examples of censorship that can be used.

The casket reference was inappropriate under "Military Censorship" because the policy had less to do with military matters than political. In fact, the second part of that Wiki section should probably be deleted ("Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security"). When the military restricts information to alter the perception of the public, the topic shifts from censorship to propaganda. A reference to the Pentagon Papers would be more appropriate under military censorship because that was a historical revealing of dirty secrets that the military tried to suppress by classifying them secret.

Using the casket reference under "Censorship of state secrets and prevention of attention" is very trivial compared to the existing citation of what was done under the Stalin regime. Adding it offers nothing new to what is already there. The act of trying to literally rewrite history by altering photographs and written records dwarfs the significance of preferring not to make a public spectacle out of dead soldier caskets. The silly thing is that the author even recognized that the example wasn't a good form of censorship, "This particular example obviously represents an incomplete or failed form of censorship, as numerous photographs of these coffins are often printed in newspapers, magazines, and on the web." That's a good way of saying that it wasn't censorship to begin with. Including the reference in this section is more a political bone than a clarification of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsrich (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.3.72 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Defining Censorship

What is the definition of censorship and would an encyclopedic definition differ from that of a dictionary?

It's obviously important to come to a consensus over the encyclopedic definition of the word "censorship" because that defines what is appropriate within the category. A dictionary defines words as they are commonly used and can define the act of censoring at so broad a level that it may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, the 5th definition, from the American Heritage Dictionary (quoted below), provides this definition: "The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship". That refers to the ability of people to censor their own words, something everybody does in their day-to-day lives. The opinions verbally expressed by people often do not match the true inner thoughts about the matter being vocally exercised. A person may censor out curse words based on the person they are talking to or leave out details that could be controversial to avoid conflict. That definition probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia under the subject of censorship.

For an encyclopedia, what exactly is censorship? Funk & Wagnalls has a good definition for censorship with: "Supervision and control of the content in periodicals, books, theatrical productions, motion pictures, and other media of communication before or after they are produced and for the purpose of preventing the publication or production of material deemed by the censoring group to be immoral or against the interest of the public. In a broader sense, censorship denotes the attempt to limit the circulation of ideas in any setting".

Censorship focuses on a small number of factors and a discussion is necessary to determine the import of those factors for inclusion in the encyclopedia definition.

1. Preventing publication - Not every bit of information in the world is appropriate for publication. The act of not releasing information is not automatically censorship. Otherwise, not releasing privacy information would be broadly classified as censorship. Using the Pentagon Papers incident as an example, the act of the military guarding that information was not censorship. It wasn't until the papers were published in newspapers and courts prevented further publication that censorship became an issue. The prevention of publication ought to be the cornerstone of the definition of censorship. Maintaining a secret, whether it be personal or corporate or government, is not censorship until somebody tries to stop publication of that secret outside of the entity maintaining the secret. The act of not releasing information is secrecy, not censorship. No attempt is being made, in this definition, to determine what secrets are appropriate for publication. Withholding information may make it difficult to find information for publication, but it isn't censorship until an entity tries to stop publication of the same information gleaned from other sources or through an improper release within the source withholding the information.

2. Degree of information suppression - The degree makes a difference. The broad powers of enforcement that governments can employ can lead to the most oppressive forms of censorship because governments can absolutely prevent the publication of views not allowed by that government. An individual, that creates an internet forum, can limit the views published in that person's forum, but doesn't have the broad power to limit what other forums can say and cannot effectively suppress information other than in the microcosm that forum controls. The company, that owns the forum site, can provide a greater degree of information suppression within all the forums under that company's control. That company cannot suppress information that another internet forum company provides. Personal levels of censorship are meaningless when there are many other sources of information not being censored. Maybe all examples are appropriate for inclusion and only needs to be broken out by the different degrees of censorship.

3. Legality - Should an encyclopedia definition of censorship take legality into account? This is probably not suitable for the definition because a dictatorship can censor publication without specifically enacting a law that defines what is allowable. It was mentioned in one definition I found. Legality becomes a subset of degree of suppression.

The definition, at the time of this writing, for Wikipedia censorship, is "defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body." The problem with including "withholding of information" is that it isn't part of other definitions that I've looked up. That's an awkward aspect of the definition because later clarification had to be made that "withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds." What exactly is "withholding information"? What is "within bounds"? Is every bit of information, that is not published, being withheld and therefore censorship? A definition is pretty bad when it requires additional clarification for what belongs in the definition and what doesn't. Even though the Wiki definition excludes "withholding of official secrets" from the definition of censorship, the section "Aspects of Censorship" immediately defines military and political censorship as withholding information. Either the definition is wrong or the examples are wrong or both are wrong. The other aspects of censorship are defined by preventing publication of information rather than withholding information.

Modifying the definition to address the "prevention of publication" will eliminate the need for that clarification and get rid of the contradicting examples being used. Incorporating "withholding of information" within the definition holds the definition hostage to defining what secrets are appropriate for inclusion. Instead of defining what secrets ought to be included, the clarification only states what secrets aren't inclusive and that leaves the definition unbounded to what ought to be inclusive. That's a bad definition.

The downside of adopting a better definition is that a lot of what is currently encompassed, by the subject of censorship, may be considered inappropriate under the new definition.

DEFINITIONS FOR CENSORSHIP

Wictionary - The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (1979) - Supervision and control of the content in periodicals, books, theatrical productions, motion pictures, and other media of communication before or after they are produced and for the purpose of preventing the publication or production of material deemed by the censoring group to be immoral or against the interest of the public. In a broader sense, censorship denotes the attempt to limit the circulation of ideas in any setting.

Webster - 1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors; especially: censorial control exercised repressively 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor Censor - : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

American Heritage Dictionary - 1. The act, process, or practice of censoring. 2. The office or authority of a Roman censor. 3. Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form. Censor - 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

Reynoldsrich 20:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynoldsrich (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 

From the introduction to the article itself: Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. This is the consensus definition the article has been operating under for some time, now. -- Kesh 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Longevity of a definition doesn't necessarily make it right. History is fraught with long-lived mistakes that eventually are corrected. The definition for censorship used here incorporates "withholding information" when two major dictionaries and a print encyclopedia do not. Wikipedia's own dictionary is in disagreement with ostage to definiere. Since "withholding information" is only defined by what it exludes and not by what it includes, it's a very weak term to include in the definition. Censorship is an active process that takes away what the public otherwise had or would have. Withholding information is a passive process that doesn't give the public information.

Keeping the current ge to definrequires more exclusions to the definition or more inclusions to covered categories. Sports secrets, by this definition, represent censorship and the recent ruckus over videotaped plays should not have been punished, but lauded for revealing censored information. Not making private information publicly accessible, by the current ge to defi, represents censorship. Use the definitions, provided by the dictionaries, and these areas are not censored activities. Every secret, or withheld piece of information, is not censorship. Every attempt to suppress the publishing of information is censorship. Reynoldsrich 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I think you're leaning too much on the negative connotations of the word "censorship." Yes, those sports secrets were censored in that they were not made available to others. For good reason, as far as the sports teams were concerned. Why should the other team be "lauded" for learning that material?

Secondly, you claim that "withholding information" is passive. Really, it's an active decision to hide information, rather than withdrawing information that was originally public. Government documents with black bars over words is "withholding information," as that information was never originally released. -- Kesh 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between secrecy (withholding information) and censorship. It's a secret when a body decides not to publish information it could publish. It's censorship when a third party prevents that body from publishing. Both can have ill effects, but they are different things. Withholding information is passive compared to releasing information. It takes more work to publish than to not publish--there is an additional step involved. Until a third party prohibits or alters that published work, it is not censorship. If a body withholds information, it could be called self-censorship and that has its own topic (and defines it as censoring one's own published works). A censor acts on the works of others. Until somebody decides to publish, a censor has nothing to act on. Government documents, with black bars over words, represent self-censorship because the government created the document (nowadays, a publicly releasable version will be word-processed without any evidence of removed words). Personal correspondence, from soldiers, with black bars on the words, is censorship because the government has altered the published works of the soldiers. An official government secret, by the Wiki elaboration, is not censorship.

I've provided three dictionary definitions and an encylopedia definition and none incorporate "withholding information" as part of the definition. The current article ge to definias been highlighted to provide a citation. Is there a dictionary definition that agrees with ostaWiki definition? If you agree with ostacurrent ge to defi, can you elaborate about what is included under the definition. Current exclusions include: "The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication". Is withholding privacy information censorship? What withheld information, not currently excluded, qualifies as censorship? What is the definition of "reasonable bounds"? These are, at the moment, very subjective things and not appropriate for a definition. There is no common understanding of exactly how the definition works. That problem does not exist with ostagictionary definitions. Reynoldsrich 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

useless line

'Typically censorship is done by governments, religious and secular groups'. Every group is either religious or secular- effectivly, this says that censorhip is gone by Governments, groups... Is it just me, or is this truely useless? It doesn't narrow down it at all. Larklight 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

—I agree with Larklight; the above seems rather redundant. PETF 12:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Fahrenheit 451

I'm thinking it might be best if the paragraph on F451 be removed. It makes the claim that the book was originally about censorship, which it wasn't even though people still regard it as such:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/16524/

It also claims that there were many various edits to the version presented in schools but there are no references to this. I think it might be best if the paragraph either gets changed (with actual references to it's claim) or removed altogether. FreedomFighterXL (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ray Bradbury says that it was one of the major themes of the novel. I'm afraid that article was sensationalist soft news.hit

And yes, there was an edited version. It says so in the back of my unedited paperback copy. Unfortunately I won't be able to refrence this until later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiahSargus (talk • contribs) 09:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship#Brazil

I've redirected the contentious article back here, and tried to tightened it up. In looking at the main source I'm wondering if it really is a decent example of censorship? Two people were filmed without their knowledge or consent. The video appears on YouTube. The couple object. YouTube says it's against their rules anyway, and remove it. People upload it again, and the couple go to court to get the video removed again. Is this censorship or an example of infringement of the couple's own rights? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good section.

Good to see that 'educational censorship' was mentioned.

Observations:

Special interst groups exploiting education for financial benefits.

As a graduate of a school of business, some marketing companies are exploiting marketing education to 'suggest' that all businesses spend some 10% on marketing.

The other observation is whereby trade journals are reluctant to print material contrary to the advertisers in their journals. So the advertisers use their advertising dollars to exercise some sort of subtle, powerful force on the media.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Ma

Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example:

Similar to the reluctance of 'the media' to address the child molestation within the Catholic Church for decades. It was finally allowed only to attacking the Catholic Church, but not to isolate the problem to homosexual pedofiles (80% of abuse cases) in the priesthood; that was and still is unacceptable; I heard one bishop mention this phrase.

My original research on 'half-truths discovered a 'connected' anti-male, anti-mother, anti-family agenda, orchestrated by many including some radical. Odd very few would allow this material to be published, because it was 'too sensitive', or 'barriers' had been set up not to allow its acceptance.

Now what do you do ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know where you're going with this. This is the discussion page for the Censorship article, not a forum to discuss censorship in general. Please try to limit the discussion to tangible suggestions for editing the article. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, medical peer review journals would not print various material because it was contrary to the 'intersts' of the owners...

If you rely on 'publications' then those who control those 'presses' are free to print or not to print...censoring various truths.

My original research in Canada saw the Children's Aid Society, 1987, isolate Men, as abusers...the same "black and white" various so called interested parties have never printed this; why ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your original research; in fact it is specifically prohibited. See WP:NOR. If you have specific suggestions about improving this encyclopedia article, please make them. --Lquilter (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Balance

What is wrong with this edit? The WND link provided balance, was from a reliable source, was directly on point regarding preexisting information, and WND has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking or it simply would not be as highly rated as it is; WND is the Internet's largest private news organization, or something around that. Is this another one of those pages where biased people ensure Wikipedia only presents one side of a story? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "worldnetdaily is not a reliable source" evidences an editor's not fully understanding wiki rules and policies. Hint, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with ostareliable sources policy. Are you? Perhaps you should read through the extensive discussions on this subject in the archives, starting here. The consensus is that worldnetdaily is not a reliable source. No, it does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, quite the opposite. It has a reputation for publishing fringe theories, distortions, half-truths and outright falsehoods. It is not a news organization and is not beholden to traditional journalistic practices. It is not peer-reviewed. It is simply a blog with ostapretension of being a "news outlet." You are perfectly welcome to make a similar edit, you just need a reliable source for it.--Loonymonkey (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Then guidance for anyone trying to add the information, fine, just get a main stream media source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CensoredRhodesiaHerald.jpg

Image:CensoredRhodesiaHerald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also

The "See also" section of this article is so utterly bloated as to be completely useless. Ideally this should be shortened into much smaller bulleted list. Neitherday (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Political Censorship

1. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately. | This sentence lacks a reference and I'll be removing it.

---

Yeah, obviously partisan and doesn't have any proof. Blaqsparrow (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Democracies are actually major proponents of censorship. Most of the Western world imposes censorship to restrict politically unpopular views. A good example is the laws against so-called "hate speech". There is also widespread political censorship in the USA. The definition of political censorship limits censorship to governments, when often the most active censors are the news media or public bodies.

Censorship of state secrets and prevention of attention

In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with ostaintent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism. | The sentence "had condemned to execution" seems out of place and I have removed it. If anyone has the entire sentence then feel free to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klemet15 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mess Up

the page cantians "Censorship is the suppression or deletion of homosexuals which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a straight dude". this is inapourpre. I dount know how to make it beter.

sourly about my spelling. 99.139.222.90 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the vandalism. I have reverted it. Instructions on how to revert can be found at Help:Reverting. -Neitherday (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is something good

Freedom of speech regarding morality and the truth is excellent, but morally-correct censorship will contribute to the wellbeing of public morality.

Censorship to immorality is a basic standard.

Phalanx Pursos 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article only, not for discussing your personal views on the subject. Remember, this is not a forum. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Loonymonkey. Remember this is an encyclopedia. Would you see this in Encyclopedia Britanica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcchief915 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Military/Political Censorship ?

• Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security.

• "censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage "

Does this clearly identify and include ostainvolvement of 'efforts' to restrict information from being printed or communicated by the active involvement of active 'moles' within public information agencies, to actively not print information, after itnias been released, so as not to record itn'in history'  ?

As in a 'historical conspiracy' not to allow to be printed important truths or promote them once they are received or known ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazy Editing

There seems to be some lazy editing in terms of dividing into sections, links, etc. I'm going to try to fix it up as best I can but I may need help. Please don't add links or sections until you learn how!! Beggarsbanquet (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Freedom in wikipedia

That means being able to post what you want but that isn't too inappropriate, even if it's not about the facts. You should be able to post stuff even if it isn't major, like a unknown band. Its like advertising.

(Sweetrevenge hardcore (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

And advertising is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. So is recreating articles that have been deleted by consensus, by the way. And re-uploading images you have been told 3 times are violating copyright. And sock puppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/XrockerrogersX). --Closeapple (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Censorship in reality differs from the current ge to defin

Currently, this wiki page says,

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor."

Likely source for that definition and technique of calling people censors: "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," American Library Association, 29 May 2007.

That is a false and misleading definition of censor in that it is nearly diametrically opposed from this far more accurate one:

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with ostaintent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.

Source for that definition: "Crying Censorship", by Stanley Fish, The New York Times, 24 August 2008.

People should give serious consideration to redefining censorship as currently presented into a definition that is based on fact and truth, not on a political agenda as it currently exists. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many problems with your ge to defi, but the first one is that it is simply an opinion piece by one person, published on a blog. Government censorship is but one aspect of censorship (as is explained and referenced in the article). To try to limit this article (which is a general article about censorship) to just one specific type of censorship would be incorrect. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, this is exactly why this page is bad. As you illustrate, the definition of "censorship" on this page is anything any particular Wiki editor says it is. Now I am not saying Loonymonkey is wrong. I am saying thtage to definiere is wishy-washy and allows an anything goes attitude that has absolutely nothing to do with encyclopedic reality. It simply is not censorship to remove educationally unsuitable material from schools, rather, it's the law under Board of Education v. Pico. But you have people pushing an agenda to ensure kids get unsuitable material and they call it "censorship" when that is not the case. This wiki page does not have to promote such an extremist view. Wiki is supposed to be truthful, accurate, encyclopedic. It is not a vehicle for promoting thtaview of politically motivated library organizations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As the old proverb says, "When you point one finger at another, you're pointing three at yourself." You are hardly in a position to lecture others about "pushing an agenda" as every one of your edits is driven by some sort of agenda that involves your hatred of the American Library Association for whatever reason (aaviewpoint on which you also publish a blog, apparently). Defining the various forms of censorship that exist is not an "extremist view." Far from it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Defining the various forms of censorship that exist is not an 'extremist view.' Far from it." I agree. But the problem arises when censorship is defined in a way that promotes a POV and is not related to the true definition of censorship. My previous arguments stand. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The "true definition of censorship"? And what is the true definition? On what would you base that definition? Your personal opinions? Your own research? Sorry, but the POV you propose to push is far from neutral. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New information from the Library Journal on this topic: "Censors" Are So Scary, by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 6 Oct. 2008. It and its sources confirm exactly what I have been saying, and more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A section on the debate over whether non-airing of TV shows is censorship

I can't speak to the experience of other countries on this, but in the U.S. any time that a network affiliate refuses to show a specific program due to actual or anticipated objections by the public (or due to owners' insistence there will be public objection even though the objections are really their own), there are public discussions of censorship. I am not arguing that such actions do constitute censorship (nor that they do not), but it seems to me there should be a section of the article discussing what is out there in reliable sources to show that a large group considers this behavior to be censorship and another large group distinguishes this as falling short of censorship, especially in cases where the material remains available to the public somehow.

An example: When the TV drama NYPD Blue debuted, ABC affiliates in some markets — Dallas-Fort Worth being the largest of these — refused to show the program. In many cases, it did air in that market after being picked up by a competitor; in DFW, it aired on the independent station KTXA-21. There were many articles and opinion pieces decrying this decision as censorship, while others posited a distinction between censorship and a business decision, considering that every station makes choices constantly about what is worth their money to air in terms of attracting viewers and delivering them to advertisers. Another example is when some local PBS affiliates opted either not to show programs with gay-themed content, such as Silverlake Life: The View from Here, or showed them at odd hours where they were likely not to be seen. Again, I'm not arguing for or against classifying these as censorship; I'm saying that there should be a section in the article providing sources where the question is raised. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha.--24.241.228.210 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A section on television censorship could include shows that aired in an edited form when shown they were broadcast a second time as a rerun such as when Sinéad O'Connor ripped up a picture of the pope on Saturday Night Live. Also, how some groups like The Parents Television Council havr been responsible for almost all complaints to the FCC about broadcast decency. 22yearswothanks (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Unfinished Music5.jpg

The image File:Unfinished Music5.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Censorship in Denmark

The discussion is related to censorship and child pornography, and I'm trying to kickstart the discussion on that rather obscure page by recruiting some people interested in the subject here on this talkpage. Please participate on Talk:Censorship in Denmark. Or flame me right here if you think that fishing for comments in this manner is inappropriate ;-) -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish wikipedia censorship

Kordas, who is an interested part in this discussion wipe out that secdefi, I restore it

Again removed, again resotored. This is not vandalism, is very important and relevant information about censorship practices in spanish wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.156.51 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page

There should be a new page related to censorship. It should deal with bars used for visual censorship (i.e., of books, magazine, or TV shows). These bars are usually black, but they can be other colors. Sometimes, the word "CENSORED" is placed on top of these bars. Sometimes (most notably in Dick Clark's shows) circles are used to cover the offending site.

The page should be called "Black Bar". The word "Censored" should redirect to it as well.

74.223.82.114 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior Review

Please list prior review. I'm planning on creating this page shortly... See: http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/trends/~law0602hs.html. I'm planning to study Hazelwood and Tinker for sources as well. --Jp07 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia censorship

1. Talk:List of Censorship#List Clean-up

I've inserted Wikipedia published sources about italian Wikipedia censorship who delete every edits who do not follow admins ideas. I also would like to underlying that these sources contain citations (scientific articles) removed by italian wikipedia. My edits were rollbacked by MrOllie (who was/is involved in many edit wars and who has almost been blocked for that behavior). I think it is necessary to denunciate every censorship like that, if not, it is already a censorship (that's my opinion).

However I believe in your good faith and I will respect your gecision in any case. Thank you for your attention and sorry for my mistakes!--Italian rsw (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss whatever problems you are having on another article on another language section of Wikipedia. Try the talk page there, or if not, does it have places like Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment? I think you may be after http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Richieste_di_pareri/Voci judging by the link, but I can't speak a word of Italian. And no, reverting isn't censorship, even if you disagree with it. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to give everyone a say. Mdwh (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that source is just an example, I do not want to discuss about my case, but about normal way solve the problems in italian wikipedia (deletion of edits). There are many italian wikipedia users censored without reasons (just for ideas who were not similar to it.admins). Italian Wikipedia is loosing edits and users exactly for that reason (many persons call italian Wikipedia "the cancer of internet", indeed they are true because it is a censorship and moreover it is also full of mistakes). I really think that en.wiki can not ignore that censorship problem. It could be nonenciclopidic. If you have some problem with translations from italian tell me and I will translate. Bye.--Italian rsw (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Find us a reliable, third party source and we'll include it. it.wikipedia is a primary source, which is not sufficient. We need a newspaper or magazine source, something to establish that the text isn't giving undue weight. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, I will try--Italian rsw (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I have inserted citations from internet websites and reviews (therefore they are non "selfreferences"). I guess they are good citations. If you want I can insert other citations proving the censorship of the italian Wikipedia. Thanx!--Italian rsw (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section as blogs and opinion pieces are not reliable sources, and links to edits in the Italian Wikipedia is not acceptable either, as that is original research (at best). Furthermore one example of an edit that may be disagreeble does not constitute systematical censorship. Thirdly if this should be included in this article (which I highly doubt), it should somehow be incoorporated in one of the existing paragraphs as there does not seem to be substance enough for it to have its own paragraph. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if a reliable source did exist, it seems undue weight to cover a single event about one website in an article as broad as Censorship. I mean - you think that "Italian wikipedia censorship" is worth a section in itself, on the same level as all political censorship, etc? A far more appropriate article would be Criticism of Wikipedia, but even there, it's unclear how notable any of this is compared to the far more mainstream criticisms of Wikipedia that are covered there. Mdwh (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So Mdwh a reliable source exist! There are many kinds of censorship as in example Wikipedia censorship. It is censorship and it is not a minor censorship. Do not do speculation as the incorporation in other paragraphs, this issue can have its own paragraph. It is intersting to see how an italian user (Grasso 83 that means fat 83...) censored by remotion the racism charges paragraph in Lega Nord english wikipedia. He was not blocked even if he is clearly a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.126.12 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested at WP:3O for a dispute on this page. I don't see an area where third opinion is needed. If one is needed, please summarize the dispute and I will be happy to provide a neutral opinion. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware who asked for a third opinion, but my guess is it was for this edit, that Italian rsw wants to add to the article. The discussion concerning this is just above this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While my Google-Italian is spotty at best, and the history of the dispute is difficult to follow, it seems to me that this is a POV push trying to spill issues from the Italian Wiki over to here to gain attention. The Italian sources give little in the way of verifiability for the average en.wiki reader. The talk page discussions on it.wiki wouldn't be reliable sources but could certainly be written about by a reliable source. We haven't seen any evidence of this happening and it would have to be found in multiple unrelated reliable sources for a discussion on inclusion even to begin. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no....they are internet review sources! Not just Wikipedia. On the other hand if you do not consider reliable wikipedia (me neither indeed...too mistakes...too censorship...too arrogance...the large number of blocked articles is clear...)...I was blocked without advices! However I see here many request to speak about wikipedia censorship without success. Your behavior was not correct, do not complain now about consequences (I know en.wiki is in crisis too and the reason is always its censorship)! I'm sure you will cancell the messages because you know you are wrong. RSW

By editing this article and the associated talk page while logged out you are evading the block User:PeterSymonds placed on your account. Please stop doing that - the correct way to proceed is to post an {{unblock}} template on the talk page of your blocked account requesting a review of the situation. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts are not "personal analysis"

According to my cite, "Fifteen of the twenty nations also prohibit paid political advertisements". "Paid political advertisement" is a type of political speech. Therefore, political speech is being restricted. This is not my opinion, this is verifiable fact.Heqwm2 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The notion that donating money is a form of political speech is highly debatable. Stating one side of that debate as fact would violate WP:NPOV. The current language is far more neutral than the edit you keep attempting to make. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. It is notable that this very issue is currently under debate in SCOTUS, and even more so that one Justice has specifically asked if SCOTUS erred in conveying First Amendment rights to corporations. But that's a discussion for another place and time. Alan (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim is not that donating money is political speech, the claim is that PAID POLITICAL SPEECH is political speech. This is not debatable by anyone with any sense at all. What is at debate in SCOTUS is whether it is political speech that is protected by the Constitution, not whether it is political speech.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We are in agreement here. However, making a blanket statement regarding censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform also flies in the face of reason...as well, IMO, as the letter AND spirit of [McCain-Feingold]. Alan (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that "under the banner" is insufficiently neutral? I never used the term "masquerading". That would imply a mendacity that I do not think is present. I believe that, on the whole, supporters have a good faith belief that they are reforming the system, and are not engaging in censorship for the sake of censorship. The fact, remains, however, that censorship is a major tool of CFR. Censorship does not suddenly stop being censorship simply because it is used with good intentions, or is part of a wider concern. The letter of McCain-Feingold quite clearly states that certain types of speech are prohibited.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, cogent and complete or nearly so, (Reyoldsrich, definitions above). As one who's had one's Wiki discussion entries deleted by apparently spiteful bigots, I must inject as well the idea that "Self Censorship" and its antidote, learning, could be factors of note for the topic: some "editors" in Wiki itself seem to happily chop away and leave but lame excuses for their personal preference that some another's writing be totally disappeared from the articles or discussions. This broaches upon the "censor" material of Freud it would seem and rests within the psychology, or lack of self control, or psychoses of some seemingly obsessive individuals who may think they are "editors" yet actually are unwitting "censors." The resultant skewed slants of some articles and discussions become readily apparent to knowledgeable readers: once again the technological advances prove beyond the ken of unwashed intellects, moral senses and religious or political biases. 71.51.79.173 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational Censorship?

Could education censorship be a rationale? Like Holocaust Denial? Ora Stendar 04:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Educational censorship should indeed be mentioned. Many educational tools are censored against students such as those blocked by "child internet safety" censors. It is indeed possible few of those blocks Holocaust information, or at least hide its relative significance by blocking pictures, as well other events deemed too "disturbing" for students. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibility.

Consider the following possibility. At a symposium the lecturer presented new cosmology which is simple, logical and easy to understand. But the new cosmology contradicts the recognised cosmology which allowed many cosmologists to achieve fame and recognition. Does the lecturer have the right to rob them of their life long achievements? I think that censorship is justified. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Tom Brokaw on censorship

Tom Brokaw is quoted discussing censorship in "SPLC's Cowardly Lyin'", FRC, 8 December 2010. I'm not a regular editor on this page, so I'm really providing the link for consideration by the regulars to do as they see fit. Good luck. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is puny

Lots of people read it. Look at this talk page. There are many links to it as well, yet the article itself is very limited in scope, only briefly explaining communist censorship, giving the impression censorship was only a small fluctuating problem in past communist states. Also, the political censorship of the USSR only showed how they did it, not why they did it. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Short-term semi-protectifin

I have semi-protected the article for a day following an apparently coordinated attempt by a couple of IPs and an SPA to add a poorly sourced paragraph about Wikipedia censoring links to websites critical of WP. If they want to include osis, they should bring it up on this talk page and provide proper sourcing. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:Ever heard of wikimedia's Blacklist (for some reason called a Spam Blacklist)? There are websites on it which are critical of WP (such as the Serendipity site). Your evidence lies in your own backyard! Sushisurprise (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck out-please adhere to talk page guidelines.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many places where one could find both valid and misguided criticism of Wikipedia. But I don't think your comment is relevant content in this section of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant? In an article on internet censorship?? Perhaps it would be better to revert the whole section if a few truths are going to spoil the party!Sushisurprise (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My "relevance" comment related to you adding your comment to a section titled Short-term semi-protectifi. It doesn't really fit. Perhaps it needs its own section. But even then, a Discussion page is where we discuss improvements to the article. So, create yourself a new section title, and propose specific, well sourced changes to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It does fit within this secdefi, because Favonian's reason for semi-protectifinwas because I and fellow IJAC supporters dared to add references to WP's own internal censorship within the main article.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The protectifinwas because you were breaking Wikipedia rules, not because of what you were trying to say, and it seemed impossible to communicate effectively with any of you about that. But right now we seem to be making a lot of progress. Do you have a specific, well-sourced comment about censorship that you believe would be of benefit to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate that this may not be the best place to say it, I would like to make it clear that I did not break any rules: I was falsely accused of sending offensive messages to someone I had never heard of. I was blocked unfairly, but I accepted the "punishment", because it is what I have come to expect when daring to criticise WP in the open. I apologise for airing this here, but I wanted to make sure that it is in the record, and as a valid reply to the previous aggresive actions of certain WP editors towards me. Here I will let it lie.Sushisurprise (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Just looked back at that. You placed a Three revert rule warning on my Talk page. The problem with that was that while I had reverted more than three times, it was to clean up what I and others perceived as vandalism, which is a valid reason to exceed the limit of three reverts. Your actions were interleaved with those of some anonymous IP editors (your "fellow IJAC supporters"?) who were promoting thtasame issue as yourself and blatantly breaking the rules. From my own perspective this had happened on my Talk page four times in around 24 hours. There were also several inappropriate additions to the article by IP editors. When I wrote "you" in that previous post, I was thinking of yourself AND those other editors. Maybe you were just unlucky to be seen to be associated with some less well behaved editors. So, having hopefully cleared that up a bit, let's get back to editing. Do you have a specific, well-sourced comment about censorship that you believe would be of benefit to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that we've reached the mud-slinging, what makes you think that your perception of vandalism is any more valid that mine, or that of any other WP poster? It is exactly this kind of aggressive, egocentric attitude which contributed to this mess in the first place. You admit you broke the rules, but you will no doubt get away with it. I supposedly broke them, but I got lumbered. WP justice indeed! I suggest you get down off your high horse and accept that because other WP users' opinions may differ to your own, that is no reason to arbitrarily censor stuff, regardless of your "perceptions". Sushisurprise (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to be constructive here. It would seem that you didn't break the rules (at least on my Talk page), and nor did I. (See my explanation above.) The vandalism by others was the frequent repeated addition of inappropriate content in the wrong place, and it was combined with no apparent attention being paid to Edit summaries when the content was reverted. Several attempts were made to initiate constructive discussion, to no avail. So it's great that we're talking here now. Wikipedia has to be a cooperative effort, and we weren't getting much cooperation form thos anonymous IP editors. And a lot of rules were being broke too, quite possibly in ignorance of what they are (perfectly understandable for a beginner) but not much interestnwas being shown in learning. It all seemed very confrontational for a while there. And by the way, I would be the first to agree with you that some areas of Wikipedia don't work very well. Some articles (not many in my experience) are dominated by a handful of editors who do push agendas. That could feel like censorship, and probably is at that level, but I don't think it's institutionalised. It means that some article are pretty bad. But that's my opinion, and therefore irrelevant, because Wikipedia needs independent sources. If you have well sourced material that highlights what could be seen as Censorship, it could go in this article. A good approach is to share it here, and work with others to add something to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, do you really think the admin guys would allow open criticism of Wikipedia to be aired? Especially on the subject of Censorship, which is a hot potato right now, following the recent daft gecision to delete supposedly (but since exonerated of the charge) paedophiliac images. The only way forward, in my view, is to continue "sniping tactics"; to make bold edits and additions where we can to relevant articles, even though we risk constant reversions (and obligatory blocks) by the senseless censors on WP. Personally, I don't think there are enough editors/admins that can be trusted to carry out the reforms necessary to put Wikipedia back in the hands of its users (but I live in eternal hope).Sushisurprise (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your "sniping tactics" will very quickly land you an indefinite block, because thankfully bullying in order to insert your own POV into articles is not looked upon favorable here. And since you have failed to provide any reliable sources to back up the claim you and your sockpuppets tried to insert here, there is really nothing further to discuss. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I know that, but making an accusation of sockpuppetry and bullying is a huge thing, and is bad faith. See the appropriate policy pages for that.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the evidence points to the "bullying" being on your side rather than mine. Your note about POV has been taken on board, and I'll make sure that reliable sources/citations are included in any future edits. Still, no doubt a few of you (especially HiLo48 and Saddhiyama) will continue to make life difficult for me whatever I do!Sushisurprise (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sushi dont try to discuss censorship on wikipedia. Everytime I have tried I simply get censored. I don't think they even get the irony. I thought people fought and died for the right to speak and have opinions. This post will last seconds before being censored so enjoy whilst you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lleemmlliinn (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the key elements of Wikipedia is good faith. (Do click on that link.) I've shown it to you here. It bothers me that you still somehow see me as some sort of enemy. But, stick to good sources for additions to article, and we can hopefully mend those bridges. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lleemmlliinn, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but that isn't censorship. Neither Wikipedia nor any other publishing service has the responsibility to publish every single thing that anybody demands. Publishing houses do not publish every single novel that is submitted to them, but that does not mean that they are "censoring" all the unpublished novels. Censorship would be if you wrote your opinions on your own website and a governing body shut it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.147.129 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Lleemmlliinn - Please read the words posted by myself and others about how Wikipedia works. I've been posting seriously for less than a year, yet you see me as part of some conspiracy. If it's a conspiracy, it's well hidden from me. The important point in response to your comment is that what is included in Wikipedia is not what you or I think. It's what we can find in reliable sources and then report here. Can you find a good article in a reliable source that says something similar to what you think about Wikipedia being censored? If not, the conspiracy must be a lot broader than just Wikipedia. It must include all the world's media. And I can assure you that's pretty hard to control! HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Harmful speech

This article is solely about the suppression of information and dissenting opinion. It doesn't mention threats, slander, copyright infringement, "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" or inciting violence. I know that many attempts to suppress the aforementioned types of speech are accused of censorship, but I'm not certain if they officially fit the definition or not. Is there a good reason why this article is separate from the Illegal Speech article?

Furthermore, the pornography example seems to be lacking, since most of the modern debate regarding censorship of pornography is framed around the argument that it is exploitative and harmful to the participants, not that it is "obscene." At least, in Western society where I live. I don't know about the discussion in the rest of the world.81.170.147.129 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti censorship movements

Is there not anything on Wikipedia about anti censorship movements and their current modern day concerns of an Orwellian society and government (besides the Free Speech Movement from the 1920's and then the 60's)?

I searched high and low and did not find any compilation, although it is a strong movement with many different factions, from anarchists and conspiracy theorists to philosophers and citizens concerned at different levels with a free society. Here on wikipedia itself their are various user groups supportive of or opposed to different levels of what some perceive as censorship.

It seems to me that a section under this article (Censorship) is well due, including mention of the hippie and FSM movements, of Anarchism (the only mention on freedom of speech in the wikipedia entry on anarchism is in a reference well down into the article), Libertarianism, the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign and other current day anti censorship and free society movements. Anybody? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Censored media / category cleanup

See Category:Censorship

I think we need a category for censored media. Any ideas for the name? Category:Censorship by media? It could become the parent category for Category:Censorship of broadcasting‎, Category:Censorship in the arts‎ (which should probably be renamed to Censorship in the visual arts), Category:Censorship of music‎ and Category:Video game censorship‎. I wonder if Category:Internet censorship‎ should be included? Also, those categories seem to mix the organizations doing censoring, and the subjects (creators and media) being censored. What a mess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I like your thinking here! Journalism, however, could technically be newspapers, magazines, broadcast, or online, or several of those categories now. I've noticed that journalism has a category called, Category:Freedom of the press (which isn't listed under the category --> Censorship). Journalism is also covered by "Censorship in ... (by country) and it seems to make sense that it's organized by nation rather than medium. I'm in agreement with you about the mess. The box that is included in the series "Censorship" has been helpful in mentally organizing the information... Crtew (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, we are missing the category for press entirely! We certainly need a category, I'd suggest Category:Censorship of news media as a subcategory to Category:News media. For now, I've done the following edits:

Category:Entertainment rating organizationsand Category:Media complaints authorities moved to Category:Censors

But are entertaiment raiting organizations censoring? I wonder if Category:Media content ratings systems should be added to Censors as well, or removed from category:censorship entirely? It's not like the media content rating system is doing any censorship.

And I am tempted to add Category:Self-censorship there as well, as one becomes a censor by self-censorship.

I'd like to create Category:Censorship law and move Category:Obscenity law‎ and Category:Pornography law‎ there

I'd to remove Category:Obscenity controversies‎ from Category:Censorship, as not all controversies resulted in censorship

I would now like to create the aforementioned Censorship by media category, and move all of the categories mentioned in my first post, including the Internet censorship, there. I'd probably create the some more nuanced categories (Category:Censored books, Category:Censored movies, Category:Censored songs and such), but I doubt I'll have time to populate them properly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The relationship between censorship and self-regulation in entertainment varies by country, but in the United States the former censorship of films eventually gave way to self-regulation in the form of film ratings (such as PG, R, X). Some self-censorship occurs whenever producers attempt to modify the content in order to gain a more favorable rating for a targeted demographic, for example. Likewise, the music and video game industries adopted self-regulation to avoid harsher regulations that would have been government imposed. Regardless of country, the topic really lends itself to a spectrum of categories.Crtew (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you raise valid points. How would you modify my above proposal? Should we start a WP:RFC to ask for more input from others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC

We are looking for more input on how to restructure censorship-related categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There seem three natural ways to slice it, geographical, medium and reason. Reason being: safety, judical, political, military, religious, moral, commercial - off the top of my head. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Is there a reason why there can't be parallel categorisations so Category:Censorship in Asia and Category:Censorship of newspapers? That said I'm not sure that "reason" is going to be a neutral classification - if a government says they're censoring for the protectifinof their citizens but a notable organisation of ex-pats say that it's actually political censorship, how is it to be categorised? 16:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to a request for comment and have not commented on this page. Presently this page seems to be more of a political commentary than anything else. I wonder whether a more neutral article could be produced by looking at the history of censorship. In the case of the UK it was illegal to print publish domestic news for a considerable period. Also in the UK, the Lord Chancellor's Office censored udesirable scenes and language from plays and books until the early 1960s. I think that the banning of books and newspapers etc is different to censorship which seeks to change the precise nature of the publication. Controlling the media etc might be better included under Freedom of the Press - in the UK we currently have a very interesting investigation where News International journalists felt "free" to hack phones etc and possible to bribe Police Officers. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)]

BBC blocked in Pakistain

The BBC is censored in Pakistai. The article does not note this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.56.137 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for this, it is something that could go in the Censorship in Pakistai article. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks, possible articles to create

1. Wieczór Wrocławia
2. Notícias da Amadora

Redlinks in main article page, possible articles to create. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: History of Censorship?

This page feels somewhat incomplete, I wonder what my fellow editors feel about the proposal to include a new section on the "History of Censorship" that would look at Censorship throughout history, does this seem like a good idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.56.4 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be a very good idea. It seems that one could get the mistaken impression from reading this article that censorship was invented in the Soviet Union. A historical section for these kind of basic terms are always most welcome. Just don't forget to include reliable sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have inserted a new history section as discussed and approved on the talk page for this article. Please modify as you see fit, it is only a first draft.65.50.222.210 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Fretzer

I've removed the bit about Siduri as it's source was a fringe self-published document and I can't source it. I added Plato who advocated censorship, and removed some original research about censorship going back 100,000 years (extremely unlikely when you look at what current thinking is about the development of language and certainly impossible to prove) and about liberty/freedom. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Music Censorship

The music censorship section is problematic. The assertion that music censorship is almost always a human rights violation is an opinion form someone's random web page. (see cite) This assertion is not verifiable. 174.44.52.91 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2013‎

The citation is from Freemuse web site. It seems to be more than just "someone's random web page", but rather the web site for (from the About Freemuse page):

• a non-profit organisation registered in Denmark;
• an independent international organisation which advocates freedom of expression for musicians and composers worldwide;
• an organisation born of the 1st World Conference on Music and Censorship held in Copenhagen in November 1998;
• a membership organisation with its secretariat based in Copenhagen, Denmark;
• an organisation funded by The Swedish International development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), The Sigrid Rausing Trust, Roskilde Festival Charity Society, Björn Afzelius International Culture Foundation (BAIK), and Sweden’s Special Initiative for Democratisation and Freedom of Expression; and
• an organisation with Special Consultative Status with the United Nation‘s Economic and Social Council, ECOSOC, since 2012.

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship in some individual countries

To the best of my knowledge, South Korea does not have pervasive censorship. However, they do filter adult material, North-Korean sympathetic results, and some YouTube videos from search engines catering to Korea. Please double-check this info and add to the map if it is correct. If it is, I think the map should be changed (South Korea goes into selective censorship)

Also, I believe that Japan censors pornography. Again, please verify this information. (Japan is moved from no censorship to selective censorship).

I believe the United Kingdom censors Pirate Bay. Yet again, please verify this info. (UK moved from no censorship to selective censorship).

First talk page edit, please clean up if there are any mistakes and let me know. Thanks. Kimchipie2000 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

These comments all relate to the Internet censorship map, is that correct? The map is based on the material in the Internet censorship by country article. And the material in that article is in turn based on information in reports from Reporters Without Borders and the OpenNet Initiative. Wikipedia isn't rating the amount of censorship in individual countries itself, but rather summarizes the ratings that have been done by others. I believe that the map matches the article and the article matches its sources, but you should feel free to check that yourself and let us know if you find something that is out of wack. The category label used for the Japan and UK on the map is "Little or no censorship" rather than "no censorship" which at least opens the door to a small amount of Internet censorship in those and most other countries. Japan was a bit of a problem since it is not rated by the usual sources. There is a discussion about this at Talk:Internet censorship by country#Where is Japan?. And, finally, the Censorship by country article summarizes censorship issues beyond just Internet censorship. Hope this helps. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Internet Censorship By Country

Given the recent push requiring an "opt-out" to remove blocks on generally available content, shouldn't the United Kingdom be updated to show "selective censorship" or "changing situation"? --Connelly90 07:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Internet censorship by country map was recently updated following the release of a new Internet Enemies list by Reporters Without Borders. See Talk:Internet censorship by country#Enemies of the Internet 2014 for additional information. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Category for individuals who had their work censored?

I think we should create such category; sample person who should be in it: Wilhelm Reich. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support, I think this is a great idea. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cirt:. I have created said category, now at Category:People who had their work censored (syntax similar to Category:People who have walked on the Moon. Or should it be Category:Victims of censorship? We should redirect one into the other, probably. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the category has been deleted (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_15#Category:People_who_had_their_work_censored). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors may find the following useful: pl:Kategoria:Autorzy objęci zapisem cenzury w Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej - category for authors censored in People's Republic of Poland. I hope that one day English Wikipedia's consensus will change and we will categorize authors (and works) by place and date of censorship, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Video Game Censorship

Seeing as there is an article on video game censorship, shouldn't it be given its own heading under "Censorship by medium"? --76.200.204.148 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov image

Is reference to the File:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg image a good example of censorship? I would regard it more essentially as being an example of PR and spin and don't see the content as central to the article topic. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Category for editing wikipedia articles to remove information or add bias?

Here's something that probably amounts to attempting to suppress an impression:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/nypd-wont-punish-cops-for-sanitizing-wikipedia-police-brutality-entries/

I'm not sure which of the methods it falls under. Does anyone want to have an opinion? ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120316121435/http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm to http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140421082325/http://mufti.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/fatwa/islamic-religious-administration-enactment-2004 to http://mufti.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/fatwa/islamic-religious-administration-enactment-2004

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080611034558/http://www.newseum.org:80/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm to http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/vanishes.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/graham-ovenden-1730
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323215225/http://march12.rsf.org:80/i/Report_EnemiesoftheInternet_2012.pdf to http://march12.rsf.org/i/Report_EnemiesoftheInternet_2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070804080018/http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0711-05.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0711-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

New related category: Category:Censored media

Following up on the old discussion at Talk:Censorship/Archive_3#Censored_media_.2F_category_cleanup, I have created Category:Censored media. Please help populate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible weasel words?

Part of the article says "There are many ways that censors exhibit creativity, but a specific variant is of concern in which censors rewrite texts, giving these texts secret co-authors."

Isn't 'there are many' weasel words in the same way 'many say' or 'it is commonly believed', without citation?116.93.23.41 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's more precise, so it is probably fine. What I'd worry more is whether the claim is referenced. If it is we could check the original source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no reference mark on it, hmm. 116.93.23.41 (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet censorship map colours

Substantial, selective and not classified/no data are too close in colour, even if the map is blown up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.78.187 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Validity and Scientific Backing?

I've been told that one of the main drivers of censorship and modification of language is in the idea of Linguistic Relativity. Related would be the ideas of Linguistic determinism, Rebranding, Prototype Theory, and Cognitive Universalism. Anyone else think this might be a good/bad idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.13.121.160 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Social Media Censorship

Hi KTJeno, the social media censorship part that you added looks good. I added a bit about why seeing disgruntled citizens' comments about certain elected officials can be good for the government who is doing the censoring, as well as provide a link to the video. You could maybe add more about why social media censorship can be viewed as good or bad to improve your section further. Kellytaft.144 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dogma remains our greatest enemy, and leads to censorship. War is social cannibalism. In the universe of ideas let language be explosive and guns be silent!Tusk Bilasimo (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

photo correction

please reproduce again the photo because the black tables are bigger than they should be. Only third world censorship is that random. Some censorship officers were artists so the tables were exact, not bigger neither smaller than what it was needed. Wikipedia isn't a political newspaper. The fact you don't like censorship officers doesn't mean that they automatically become retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410F:A900:BC5A:5B78:BB19:E344 (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Types

http://media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/censorship/defining.htm

• Preventive (including Self=censorship)
• Punitive

Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303221407/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Royal dog as a subject

I have just found this:

A factory worker in Thailand who is facing up to 37 years in jail for insulting the military rulers is also being investigated for mocking the king’s dog.

Guardian 2015. I wonder if to add it... Zezen (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Should category for censored media be deleted?

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_27#Category:Censored_media. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Censorship - image

Hello everyone, As french students in digital communication, we studied communication censorship with emojis. And mainly controversial issue of emojis. We published on the Censorship's page in the Image's section. Can you give us ours opinions ? Thanks --IAEP.MargotA (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that example of censorship(the Birth of Venus) looks like a satire, so Wikipedia shouldn't be using as a prirarly example. --2620:0:1000:2811:4BDC:9561:7097:D13E (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it. Keep your eye on this page. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorization

Previously, Category:Obfuscation was a subcategory of Category:Censorship. However, i reversed it, so that now Category:Censorship is a subcategory of Category:Obfuscation; i felt it would be more appropriate that way. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A more detailed and chronicled history of censorship

What does the group think about, adding a detailed etymology of the term censorship? Also, why is the current reference used, as it not the most defining, earliest, or best way to understand the history of the concept of censorship.

Any thoughts on what would be included in the ideal history regarding censorship? Julientremblaymclellan (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

New interesting images of censorship uploaded, feel free to use or ask for more

If you go to media and look up 'Censorship in the Republic of China', you will find some interesting photographs.

I've uploaded two images of censored texts found in a 1978 edition of Encyclopedia Americana. The texts were censored by the Republic of China (now commonly known as "Taiwan"). In one image, (what I believe are) Communist slogans in a photograph have been censored. In the other photograph, words in the article itself as well as in a map of Mongolia have been censored. Stamped on the bottom left of both images are the words "Contents deleted as instructed by the Ministry of Interior, ROC."

I find these interesting because there is hardly any English content about censorship in Taiwan, which used to be a dictatorship, and also because there aren't a lot of images of such blatant censorship uploaded so far. Additionally, for one article the censorship is motivated by anti-Communist sentiment. Because people might tend to (problematically) think of Communist governments as the only ones doing the censoring, that they are here the ones being censored seems mildly ironic and quite informative.

Feel free to use the images. There are much more from the same Encyclopedia Americana that I can upload. I will not be inserting the images right now (maybe later) because I want to give the whole Wiki article a good read first before I change anything. CensoredDog (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

CensoredDog has started edit warring. I have given reasons why his edit is not relevant but he has reverted by revert. The reasons are simple. A photo of a page of an encyclopaedia is not a relevant photo for a page no matter what the accompanying text. I asked for the text to more appropriately put into prose and the encyclopaedia that was in the photo to be used as a source but to no avail. WP:BRD is relevant here which I pointed out. CensoredDog needs to justify why his edit improves the article. I await a cogent response. Robynthehode (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: Thank you for your concerns, but I believe there are some inaccuracies in the way you have characterized our dispute. I will quote you to avoid straw manning.

• "The reasons are simple. A photo of a page of an encyclopaedia is not a relevant photo for a page no matter what the accompanying text."

This is inaccurate and misleading. The page of that encyclopedia was very obviously censored. If you'd take a careful look at the photograph, Communist texts in the image at the top left have been crossed out by the Nationalist party of the ROC. Likewise, the caption of the photograph has been crossed out by the same dictatorship. The bottom left is stamped "Contents deleted as instructed by the Ministry of Interior, ROC."

Now, there are a few hypotheses that a rational individual might make about your misleading statement which refers to that photo as simply "a page of an encyclopedia."

One hypothesis is that you did not look at the image carefully enough to see the censored parts. That would not be my fault. Another hypothesis is that you did see the censored parts but failed to mention it in your "simple" reason for deleting it. That would be disingenuous of you. However, I will assume good faith and believe that you did not look at the photograph carefully enough. So, please look at it more carefully. If you have seen the censored portions and still think that it is simply a "page of an encyclopedia," please let me know why.

• "I asked for the text to more appropriately put into prose and the encyclopaedia that was in the photo to be used as a source but to no avail."

This is accurate but misleading.

(1) I noted in one of the edit summaries that this requirement is debatable. There are legitimate academic sources that do not abide by this practice. Perhaps--if I may so boldly suggest--a criterion of relevance is more reasonable. If we can agree on this criterion, then I think it is reasonable to say that an image depicting one former Chinese dictatorship's censorship of the Chinese Communist Party is relevant to a section about political censorship.

(2) You also made the quite subjective comment that the original caption is "overly long." My caption was 46 words (now 40 words, following your suggestion). The longest and second-longest captions on the page are 83 words and 39, respectively:

83-word caption: "Wieczór Wrocławia – Daily newspaper of Wrocław, People's Republic of Poland, March 20–21, 1981, with censor intervention on first and last pages—under the headlines "Co zdarzyło się w Bydgoszczy?" (What happened in Bydgoszcz?) and "Pogotowie strajkowe w całym kraju" (Country-wide strike alert). The censor had removed a section regarding the strike alert; hence the workers in the printing house blanked out an official propaganda section. The right-hand page also includes a hand-written confirmation of that decision by the local "Solidarność" Trade Union."

39-word caption: "Chinese troops destroyed the statue Goddess of Democracy in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and continue to censor information about those events.[7] This statue, now known as the Victims of Communism Memorial, was recreated by Thomas Marsh in Washington, DC."

I think we can agree on a few premises. (1) The above two captions are not overly long. (2) If they are not overly long, then a 40-word caption (mine, trimmed down from 46 words) is not overly long. (3) Length is highly subjective. (4) There are captions in legitimate academic sources that are just as if not longer. (5) There are images and captions in legitimate academic sources that are not put in prose in the article itself. (6) If we agree on some of the premises (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), then it is reasonable to say that your objection to word length and lack of prose has been adequately addressed. CensoredDog (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back with a detailed response. Having looked again at your edit I can admit I made an error in assessing what the photo depicted. I should have been more careful. So I think your original edit was legitimate but stand by the following points. I think it is good practice to follow WP:BRD. While not mandatory coming to the talk page to explain an edit can more easily reveal the reasoning behind it. Your detailed explanation above is a case in point. Second your comparative word length argument is not valid (unless the comparison is based on an accepted consensus for caption word length). Although we may agree on an acceptable word length for captions comparing word length of one caption to another does not justify a general word length. However, looking again at the photo I believe your re-edited caption is perfectly acceptable. So apologies for my mistake in misreading your initial edit and happy to leave it as is. Robynthehode (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! As our previous dispute has been resolved, I will leave the issue of caption word count for another day (if necessary). But most importantly, I want to thank you for being civil and honest. CensoredDog (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats to you both for civility. Zezen (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition?

The current definition of censorship seems to be contradicted by the source.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus"

When you follow the reference (Merriam-Webster) it doesn't say anything about community consensus, only governments Unfortunately I don't know how to change it for the better, maybe someone else has a good idea? 85.226.145.74 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are completely correct. There is no such thing as censorship by community consensus. The article mentions community once in relation to books. Its not appropriate to add community consensus to the lead because its not supported in the article below. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This abstract succinctly describes what is going on. We need to clarify that censorship is undertaken by government but sometimes carried out by private institutions. Its polemic use and its more specific use in the USA needs to be clarified. To be considered censorship the "activity has at least to be publicly recognized". - Shiftchange (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The key word in the definition sentence is suppression. Suppression means "to put an end to" or "to do away with" or "to withhold from disclosure or publication". That is not what happened to Alex Jones when he was "deplatformed". His speech is still free at infowars, so it hasn't ended, been withheld or been done away with. True suppression can only come about through the actions of authority, such as jailing dissenters, not by the actions of individuals or companies making business decisions that moderate extremes. We need to make the distinction between moderation and censorship clear. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

47A74, Lothkans - this is an article talk page. It's here to allow you to discuss changes. Please quit reverting each other without edit summaries, and discuss these changes, or do I need to start handing out edit warring warnings? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! The section was removed as my edit summary because it is giving advice to journalists about how to protect themselves from surveillance and it's not the subject of the article. Lothkans (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand what you meant now. I'll be more careful next time. 47A74 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Karta s fotografií škpt. Sergeje Petrase a škpt. Josefa Buršíka.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Research has proved that criticism is tolerable on social media sites"

"Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities"

"Flooding the public"

These are just a few examples; this article feels very vague. a lot of this article feels vaguely worded. I'm adding a template for this, if this is a mistake feel free to revert it. Maestrogeicho (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlejandraSantoyo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KTJeno. Peer reviewers: Kellytaft.144.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the government protecting us from free speech for our own good or for their own hidden agenda?

What makes big tech the arbiter of what's right or wrong? When did free speech become something that wealthy big tech companies filter for us mere mortals? They are self appointed and have no better knowledge of what's right or wrong than anyone else so why are we tolerating this assault on speech or on us? 107.122.97.47 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Smart Libraries

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2022 and 14 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Possumsandpages (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kelseycronin (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)