Talk:Censorship: Difference between revisions

I think that the article “censor” should redirect to this censorship article. When most people use the word “censor,” they're using it as a verb, to describe the act of censorship. Such links should go directly to this article. The article about censors in ancient Rome should be renamed “Censor_Ancient_Rome” or whatever, with links provided for the small minority of people who are actually looking for that discussion when they type in or link to “censor.” -Blackcats 7 Feb, 2005, 04:30 GMT

• /Archive 1 - May 10 2004 and earlier

That's why you don't look up verbs.

I don't understand the quotation and it doesn't seem relevant to the article (although it is an interesting logical fallacy). I'm removing it. Ambush Commander 04:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Question, is the edit policy of wikipedia a form of cenorship?

It can't be. Nothing is being 'banned' in that sense. Edits are to improve not to censor. -x42bn6 8 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

that is not true. It is the policy of Wikipedia to delete any post by a so-called "banned" user, regardless the quality of the post. In that regard, censorship serves as a tool to regulate community membership. Beyond that, there is an extensive list of what "Wikipedia is not". Edits that conflict with the goals of that ad hoc list are removed, i.e. censored. Edits believed by a sufficiently powerful individual or group of editors to represent a "point of view" that is not "neutral" are censored from Wikipedia. Censorship is the official exclusion of information ostensibly for the purpose of improving public discourse. Censorship is central to the editorial process of Wikipedia.

Rybold 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently covers censorship as it exists at the moment, but is lacking in any sense of history -- and this is a subject with a large history, in which current positions and actions are much influenced by that history. (Some UK content is also needed.) DES 07:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An admin is abusing her position to block content at feces. Check it out at talk:feces.

Why is Israeli censorship considered "POV pushing" when censorship by other governments is fair game in this article? I didn't write the deleted line but I don't agree with its deletion. What do others think? (this is the edit I mean) --csloat 1 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

The article mentions almost no other countries, the entry was unsourced and not representative of the true situation of freedom in Israel, and the editor in question is obsessed with finding negative to say about Jews and Israel, and has attempted to do so in close to a dozen articles now - that's POV pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

--Jayjg, you have attempted hundreds of false pro-Israel and Zionist edits. This is yet another case of your POV pushing. The subject of the section is wartime censorship. The IDF is the most notable group using press censorship at the moment. You are obsessed with pushing lies and pro-Jewish propaganda into Wikipedia. Reread the text and before you reactionarily edit. From Haaretz: [[1]] "A sense of deja vu has settled in at the newsrooms of the print press and the broadcast stations. The military censor, which had seemed to be an annoyance that had passed from this world, has been resurrected and once again is making things difficult for the free press in Israel.

Of all the countries in the world, it is Israel that has the least free press? No mention of the dozens of dictatorships and military governments which severely censor the press in Africa, South America, Asia? Israel ranks 44th on "Reporters without Borders" World Press Freedom ranking. Why don't you first focus on the 122 countries that scored worse that Israel? Obvious POV pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Add them if you like, but stop deleting others' contributions because you have a pro-Israel POV. The IDF censorship issue is applicable to the text discussing wartime. Reread the text! Stop reverting and making ridiculous reactionary edits.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

NPOV demands that this (and every other) article focus on the most prominent examples of the phenomenon, and not simply emphasize relatively unimportant examples - otherwise you introduce systemic bias into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

I do know that Israel has a formal censorship policy. If you want to comment on what you know about other countries, please contribute as well. It would be POV pushing to delete factual information. Sorry. Please do a googletest and let us know the results. Until then, please stop the POV reverts.69.209.239.161 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed. New arguments only please. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

What seems to be happening here, is a fundamental failure to understand the difference between freedom of access and freedom of expression. Israel's military has a formal censorship policy, but that's hardly noteworthy: every military in the world has a censorship policy. So does every government. So does every business. This isn't sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion in the article. If Israel's military were actively interfering in the editorial policies of the Israeli press, that would be an entirely different issue, and worthy of mention. BUT that is not what's going on, nor is is anyone apparently claiming that it is, so the inclusion of Israel can be regarded as one of two things: (1) POV-pushing or (2) Ignorance-pushing. Tomer ^TALK July 5, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

--The topic of the paragraph is wartime censorship. Israel is at war and carrying out occupation and there are many references to the press censorship issue. The predictable placing of Stalin and Hitler is what's really out of place. There is no POV pushing, except yours, and your blind spot. Read the preceding paragraph please.69.217.200.164 6 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Please quit the blind vitriol. This is not a forum where you can slander an entity through egregious distortions and expect to get away with it. Here, the mix of points of view allows for checks and balances, and you're getting checked. Watch out for WP:3RR, please. HKT 6 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

Israel is at war? Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

I'm interested in adding information about "Corporate Censorship." Such as we see in the United States, that arises from sponsers of a network or program refusing funds if certain information or views are distributed, where would I put such comments? Look at Fox news, regardless of your personal views, it's obvious to see there's a slant. As is the case in all network news, the slant follows the money. I'm not trying to publicize my personal bias so much as add information about a growing trend, with peer review of course. How would I go about doing this?--Legomancer 08:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added an NPOV tag with a claim that the article is "pro-socialist" and "anti-Western". Does anyone know what the hell he's talking about? More to the point, shouldn't an editor enter into conversation on the talk page before slapping an NPOV tag on an article? I don't see anything justifying the tag except perhaps a sentence or two that could easily be rewritten.--csloat 06:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Implementation - Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations are represented, especially among Western government, academic and media commentators, to have somewhat less institutionalized censorship, and instead are represented as promoting the importance of freedom of speech. The dichotomy might have as much basis in preferred self-perception as in fact, however. Studies of media in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics revealed most limits on media content were self-imposed by reporters and editors, while the process of content selection developed more from selection of personnel who report news. In much of the Soviet empire, there were few official censors. The same process is evident today in major Western media, where members of preferred social classes enjoy almost exclusive control of content production in print and broadcast media.

Claiming that there was only self-censorship in the Soviet Union, not systematic state-led censorship is a rather intellectually dishonest notion. The original author of the article asserts that Soviet media only practiced self-censorship similar to western institutions. That is a complete canard. The state owned all forms of media, so it was both the owner and the entity that would have benefitted from the self-censorship. Also, read the last sentence of that paragraph, arguing that "members of preferred social classes enjoy almost exclusive control of content production in print and broadcast media." That's a quote straight out of Marxist conflict theory, practically. Thirdly, look at the Links sections. You're telling me out of all the self-censoring entities in the world, the top 10 of which I would say are in the People's Republic of China, the author only found the State Department and the White House's webpage?

Finally, the reason I decided to NPOV the entire article is because that paragraph was written by the original author, hence it is quite a stretch to think that the rest of it does not have some inaccuracies. I'm not recommending its deletion here, just someone peer review it. Kade 02:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since your only stated reason for a NPOV complaint is your belief that the paragraph you cite was written by the original author, and since that assumption is incorrect and verfiably so by a review of the history page, I am removing the NPOV. I am not the original author, I am the person who expanded the article under a username Rybold.

You state, based on your not recognizing (or believing) author information available in the history section, that "it is quite a stretch to think that the rest of it does not have some inaccuracies" but describing the limitations of your thought processes does not inform an understanding of inaccuracies you suspect but do not cite.

I will add a sentence clarifying differences in ownership structure between the Soviet Union and the US. Other shortcomings you allude to, saying "You're telling me .... the author only found the State Department", can be resolved by you adding links to self-censoring entities of which you are aware.

You incorrectly state that social class analysis of media content originators "comes straight out of Marxist conflict theory". Though Marx might have reached similar conclusions based on his analysis of other cultural millieus, the analysis is simple informed observation coincident with widespread criticism of media in the United States. FAIR and Chomsky would more accurately be cited as inspirations for recognizing social class influence in major US media. RyboId 17:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above was posted by RyboId (talk · contribs) (RYBOID) who appears to be spoofing Rybold (talk · contribs) (RYBOLD) who posted on this page on December 4. Blocked as an impostor. -- Curps 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever blocked this username advanced bold assumptions without first inquiring of the user. The uninquisitive tone of hostility does not seem consistent with a genuine search for encyclopedic information, but does convey a sense of impatience, suspicion and lack of cooperation.

Admin Curps would do well to observe in good faith the consistent tone and interest of the two visually similar user name, to observe the constructive articulate nature of each user name's contribution, to note the lack of destructive edits by either user name, to consider difficulties encountered by harried volunteer contributors to an opensource project and to post an inquiry on the user's talk pages and wait an appropriate time before making dark allegations that a contributor is an impostor or is spoofing.

Now posting as Riebold, I have also posted as Rybold and as RyboId. I adopted a similar appearing user name after returning to read an article I had contributed to and discovering that I had forgotten the password to the original user name. The baseless allegation of "spoofing" does not contribute to the general community spirit nor to a general sense of credibility for this project. Riebold 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the largest organs of state-sponsored censorship in the late 20th Century was Glavlit operating in the Soviet Union. It deserves mention here.

It seems that there are categories or lists (that represent a relevant concept) that should be pointed to, not individual works. -- Fplay 09:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External and internal links are getting unwieldly. I removed the links to articles which were deleted. I think that the majority of the links should be outsourced to daughter articles. For example, a link to a politician who supports censoring video games may be germane in an article about the censoring of video games but not in the generic article about censorship. What is the statute of limitations on links to Censorship in X country which have not been created? Savidan 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are breaking stories over censorship of editors (being scaked) who want to run the cartoon. Where can I find it?John wesley 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief description of corporate censorship as I thought it odd that although in actuality it's the most common form people in the west are exposed to nowadays, there was little mention of it outside of the "Terms" paragraph aside from mild references to refusal to run certain opinion pieces and mentioning portraying certain servies in a positive light later in the article. I know there is a stub for "corporate censorship" but I believe many of the issues relating to "corporate censorship" would be better served in this main censorship article, as it is the form of censorship most prevalent these days.

Also, I'm not particularly happy with the wording as "corporations" in this context could just as easily be replaced with any privately owned small town newspaper. Although in "Terms" it does allude to how it is only really regarded as censorship when a large segment of the population is served, it is also censorship if a story only relevant locally was refused publiction in a local newspaper and so the wider local populance never becomes aware of it. (Dictionary definition of verb censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable")

Also, I think perhaps a brief mention of how reporters and editors in some privately owned news outlets will be expected to follow the owners ideological viewpoint closely in what information they are allowed to print and how it is presented. (See Rupert Murdochs tabloid newspapers for example, and to a lesser extent his Fox news network, or anti-europeanism in UK tabloids). Perhaps even a brief sentance on the rights and wrongs of private news' responsibilities? I dont want this to degenerate into a whole article on "Fair and Balanced", but I would prefer a much clearer linking between how propaganda and censorship are two sides of the same coin, and how corporations can follow an ideological bias of their own due to their controlling interests. (For example, see the role of the private media in the recent attempted coup in Venezuela). I think the final paragraph in the implementation section is a little too brief for such an important part of the modern censorship implementation.

Although I dont agree with much of the philosophy behind it, other takes on censorship perhaps worth presenting in brief are some of the ideas in Chomskys "Manufacturing consent" or "Media Control (2nd ed) : The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.".

Unlike the poster above, I don't think that this is the proper place to refer to specific cases of censorship or the article could baloon horribly. (For example, for just one example of corporate censorship, google for "corporate censorship fox and monsanto"). Perhaps there could be a link to mention of the sacking of editors over the printing of satirical cartoons of Mohammad, but I think perhaps that might be better placed in a link from the article on freedom of speech alongside a comparison of the sentencing of holocaust-denier David Irving to jail time in Austria. After all, the printing wasn't officially censored (although clearly there was a decision taken in many news outlets not to publish which amounted to de facto censorship), but instead the publishers of unpopular articles were punished after the fact.

Mouserat 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]