Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::The original comment has nothing to do with the ] article. As it states at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
::The original comment has nothing to do with the ] article. As it states at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Indeed. As per ] the removal was perfectly fine and ought not to have been reverted. --] (]) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Indeed. As per ] the removal was perfectly fine and ought not to have been reverted. --] (]) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
::The original entry on the talk page could be taken as a statement that possible censorship of Misplaced Pages by Zionists is something that should be discussed in the body of the Censorship article. If some of us don't agree, we should say so and say why here on the talk page. If we think that the statement belongs in a different article, we should suggest that here too. Or, if we aren't sure what the editor is requesting, we should ask for clarification. Or we could remind the editor that talk pages are for discussions about improving the article and not a forum for a more general discussion of the topic. Simply deleting the text without explanation could easily be mistaken to be censorship itself, particularly on a talk page about the ] article. Doubly so when material from the same editor is deleted from the body of the article and its talk page at more or less the same time. So, I continue to feel that providing explanations and allowing for discussion is better than simply deleting the material. --] (]) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:34, 2 July 2013
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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)
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. RichFarmbrough, 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)]
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)
All other (non-Zionist) opinions are censored and removed from articles in Misplaced Pages.
The above comments were added to this talk page by IP 121.215.158.206 at 22:21 on 1 July 2013, almost immediately deleted by Discospinster at 22:21 without an edit summary, and restored by me, Jeff Ogden (W163), at 22:34 with an edit summary that said "I think it is better to talk about this on the talk page than to delete it." --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The above text was also added to the body of the article at 22:18 on 1 July 2013 by IP 121.215.158.206 and removed at 22:21 on 1 July 2013 by Discospinster without an edit summary. I think it is reasonable to remove this content from the body of the article since no reference to a reliable third-party published source is given. Even if you take the YouTube video as a source, the text draws conclusions that go beyond what is said in the video. This would constitute original research, something we are to avoid. I think it would have been polite to have given a reason for the deletion of the text from both the talk page and from the body of the article, just so everyone could understand the thinking behind the actions. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I wish I could understand the thinking behind the IP editor's original unsigned comment. But I agree with what you say and what you have done W163. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The original comment has nothing to do with the Censorship article. As it states at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." ... discospinstertalk18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The original entry on the talk page could be taken as a statement that possible censorship of Misplaced Pages by Zionists is something that should be discussed in the body of the Censorship article. If some of us don't agree, we should say so and say why here on the talk page. If we think that the statement belongs in a different article, we should suggest that here too. Or, if we aren't sure what the editor is requesting, we should ask for clarification. Or we could remind the editor that talk pages are for discussions about improving the article and not a forum for a more general discussion of the topic. Simply deleting the text without explanation could easily be mistaken to be censorship itself, particularly on a talk page about the Censorship article. Doubly so when material from the same editor is deleted from the body of the article and its talk page at more or less the same time. So, I continue to feel that providing explanations and allowing for discussion is better than simply deleting the material. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
