Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 20 November 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Censorship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pornography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kellytaft.144. 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 (article contribs).

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)

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)

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. 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)

should show more distinction between state censorship and censoring of inappropriate content

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)

By Institution

Censorshipping Mind Control was and is Standard in Canonicism of Conforming Believes like NaZional Racism and its Monorace-theism, so is Misplaced Pages it self nothing more than a Propaganda-Platform for Religious Racial Fanatics, denying the pederastial Cause of the Monotheism in absolute.

Monocanonism is same, in denying other Opions and Perspectives about respective Issues.

Same counts for Gawgle, which censores massively by help suppress on illegal method Persons rights of Freedom of Speech and articulation of Opinions with IP blacklistening, especially for catholic Terrorist Groups. like the Fascistic Vatikane Kyreios Kyria of raping rage monks.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Freedom of speech articles
• High-importance Freedom of speech articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class law articles
• Top-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Media articles
• Low-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Top-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Low-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Pornography articles
• High-importance Pornography articles
• B-Class High-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles