Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Archive 2

message: I'm just trying to make sure I get this right; you don't condone material that can be found on shock sites, do you? I don't think I need to go into specifics. --Anittas 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't condone anything. We support the current Wikipedia policy, which states: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted." Kaldari 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock sites 

message: Stop with the userboxes alerts, please. This project, and it's longest term members, come down on differing sides of said controversy. Do not obscure our purpose (RF - the change to the censorship clause, the Quaran picture) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  userboxes. 

message: I just created the "Wikipedians against censorship" project page on Japanese Wikipedia. link Hermeneus (user/talk) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my Japanese was any good I would help you out, but I wish you good luck with it! 頑張って！Gerard Foley 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Wikipedians against censorship on Japanese Wikipedia 

message: ***While you are keeping wikipedia uncensored, you might want to read about straw men and maybe even why slippery slopes are silly and why the Iran argument makes no sense Mikkerpikker ... 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactored from alerts page: 

message: I tried to add free license images to this article but User:Wyss is being funny about it, reverting my version here and claiming that the top image will eventually be removed by "other users". I would appreciate peoples help and/or advice on this. Thanks Sven the merciless 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why this picture can be interchangible with other pictures which are less revealing, but I don't see why removing that picture for another picture is censorship. Plus, I feel only one or two pictures are needed for the article, and atleast one picture should be a picture which documents sun damage upclose. A sun burn perhaps? --OrbitOne 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem at [[Sun tanning]]

message: I am OUTRAGED to learn that the powers-that-be have cencored many of the templates that were considered "politically incorrect."  We as the Wikipedians aganist Cencorship should fight against this.  Considering the fact that the Administration has cencored these right-winged based templates, I believe that many of the left-wing templates should be taken off of this site.  Some of the right-wing templates that have been censored are Anti-UN, Wikipedians who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, Wikipedians who consider themselves Politically Incorrect, Wikipedians who are Pro-life, Wikipedians who consider themsleves Born Again Christians.  These are all of the ones that I can think of that have been cencored, but there could be more.  As a user, I believe we should combat all forms of censorship.  I think all those who agree with me should rise up against the left-wing held admin and set things right. LordRevan 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for censorship of Wikipedia articles. The place to complain about your userboxes being censored is WP:UBP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LordRevan and Admin Cencorship of Templates

message: Guys, i need help. As you know, wikipedia has every type of things that are notable only withing a small group, everything from articles disgusting sex games, to pokemon cards, to warhammer to UFO.
My problem is that as soon as i creat a article in good faith and in aimes to enirch wikipedia with representation of the ideas of the 9/11 Truth movement, there comes a AFD on the article within 5 houres, claiming it has no notability in the big world. Take a look at this, and give me a comment:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conspiracies_Guild#AFD.27s
Thanks and peace. --Striver 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not censorship to delete your poorly written, uncited, unverifiable bad articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: I only just found this poll. Perhaps people here would be interested. Gerard Foley 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll]] 

message: Just thought I'd make you all aware of Wikipedia:Wikiethics which is in short a censorship proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALERT 

message: Hello editors. Many users have this noticeboard on their watchlist. If you are unsure of the accuracy and neutrality of a statement, run it by another editor before you post it on the board. It very would be very easy to mercilessly delete an anti-censorship group if we were perceived as hostile towards well meaning wikipedians.
So, simple. Don't be hostile. It isn't necessary. Please respect peoples sensitivities. This is too serious an issue to be sensationalised. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and Sensitivities 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_criminals_and_victims
I believe it has encyclopedic value but it shows some Jews in a negative light so its being considered for deletion. Please offer some assistance.
Jerry Jones 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a standard VfD to me. I see nothing there that suggests an attempt at censorship. Gerard Foley 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship alert 

message: I feel like what I'm saying is rather unimportant in comparison, but...I could, if people wanted, to reorganize the member list in alphabetical order. —Mirlen 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Member list

message: On the Talmud page posting anti Christian quotes which are verifiable factual information which is in fact in the Talmud have been continually removed. The article is extremely one sided. Both the Quran and Christian pages have all of the anti-Semetic quotes posted and I dont see why the Talmud should have another standard. Why should the Talmud be given special treatment? Please assist.
Jerry Jones 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be helpful it they weren't false quotes invented by anti-Semites. Jayjg (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Censorship alert! 

message: There have been no changes to the project page or this talk page in almost a month now. If nobody replies, I will mark this as inactive.--Frenchman113  on wheels! 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely the member's page is active. -- 127.*.*.1 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? Wikipedians against censorship inactive? That would be a shame. Why do you think so? gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This project is definitely NOT inactive! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would give it longer than a month. Most projects on Wikipedia go through periods of inactivity. They usually aren't marked as inactive, though, unless they've been stagnant for several months. Kaldari 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that unlike content projects we don't usually go out and edit articles unless there's censorship going on. It's more of a "values" project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for writing an encyclopedia. Loom91 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has project gone inactive? 

message: Please keep an eye out. Some people are trying hard to remove criticsim of wikipedia even if it could be constructive criticism. We should have freedom of speech here. User:Sceptre has a talk page full of "don't remove other peopl's comments" from other users and has been deleting pages he disagree with. Please keep an eye out. Navigatrix 12:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Sceptre's talk page has only two comments on removing talk page comments, both related to a single issue. User:Lou franklin (which I suspect was your original account, Navigatrix) was spamming people's talk pages with a frustrated rant. Sceptre reverted these. ~MDD4696 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics being silenced 

message: This User 87.17.136.171 has categorized as Humor the project page against censorship.
I am wondering how this "fact" is considered in the English Wikipedia.
--Fragolino - (Follow the white rabbit!) 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is viewed with disdain and lo! It was quickly reverted. We have enemies as past events have indicated. ;) -- 127.*.*.1 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi All

message: I have worked on an article for Charles Coughlin and I have entered a dispute with an editor. I want the opinions of wikipedians against censorship on whether or not this is censorship. This editor refuses to discuss this and deletes this sentence continually without a reason which leads me to believe that he takes personal offense to it and that is why he wants it removed even if its informative and has great encyclopedic value. 
Here is the article and the line in bold is disputed and being continually removed:
After 1936, however, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism, though this was before World War II began. His radio broadcasts also became overtly anti-Semitic. He also began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed anti-Semitic accusations such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like Joseph Goebbels, Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot. On Nov. 20, 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, when Jews across Germany were attacked and killed, and Jewish businesses and homes burned, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims, saying that "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted." After this speech, and as his programs became more anti-Semitic, some radio stations, including those in New York and Chicago, began refusing to air his speeches without pre-approved scripts. This made Coughlin a hero in Nazi Germany, where papers ran headlines like "America is Not Allowed to Hear the Truth." On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential asylum law changes that would allow more Jews to enter the country, chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" these protests continued for several months. Donald Warren, using information from the FBI and German government archives, has also argued that Coughlin received indirect funding from Nazi Germany during this period. 
Why I think it should stay:
I believe this line should stay because I feel the whole article just says that Father Coughlin is anti semetic. It doesnt say why he is anti semetic and there are major holes in the article. Its one sided. This one line explains a lot because one:
1-It's accurate. It makes a connection to fascism as the article goes over. 
2-It explains why someone like Father Coughlin, as a priest, would support a Nazi regime
3-The article talks about Father Coughlin being fascist but doesnt explain why. This one sentence makes a big connection to Coughlin supporting fascism. 
4-It's Father Coughlin's viewpoint and explains why he supported the Nazis.
I am just trying to make the article fair and balanced without it being one sided. The whole article joes goes on about him being anti semetic facist but it doesnt say even one time why he was anti Semetic. I tried to add Father Coughlins viewpoint and it was being continually deleted without even a reason. I won't even get an answer. Please read the whole article over and give you opinion on whether or not this is censorship or if I am wrong. Here is the article: Charles Coughlin
Thanks,
Jerry Jones 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I should point out that I do not know much about Charles Coughlin. Secondly, you don't have to copy the entire article here. Finally, I'm not sure if this is censorship but reverting that sentence over POV is definately not right. However, the points over original research and verifiability still stand. If you can provide citations to back it up I think you have a case. -- 127.*.*.1 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You need some references to state your sentence (this is true in general, and expecially if the issue is disputed). On the other hand, if true, the part Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot should stay. Anyway, in Europe there were many people claiming Jewish plots, so I do not understand why referring to Goebbles; of course, this also can be cleared with a suitable reference. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please give a consensus and offer assistance -Censorship 

message: ===:Category:Anti-Semitic people===
NEW VOTE
KEEP - This category was already voted on Vote and the decision was to KEEP.  This +cat was posted for deletion without posting a WP:CFR or mentioning it on the +cats talk page.  Just another sneaky trick to try to get it closed without a fair opportunity to vote.  Please note, there are a lot of anti-Semites on the Internet that would love to shut this +cat down, they should not be allowed to do so Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship SirIsaacBrock 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Request

message: NEW VOTE
KEEP - This category was already voted on Vote and the decision was to KEEP.  This +cat was posted for deletion without posting a WP:CFR or mentioning it on the +cats talk page.  Just another sneaky trick to try to get it closed without a fair opportunity to vote.  Please note, there are a lot of anti-Semites on the Internet that would love to shut this +cat down, they should not be allowed to do so Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship SirIsaacBrock 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]]

message: The Template:User freespeech userbox was vandalized, changing the box text and removing all references to this project.  I have reverted the changes.  Just a quick FYI. — Wwagner 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox vandalized 

message: A userbox poll is nearly done, and could do with a bit of support. It aims to stop Admins deleting userboxes and censoring people's opinions on their own userpages. - • The Giant Puffin • 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox poll 

message: See here: Skinnyweed 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - ''Jimmy Wales'' 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29
This term is apparently offensive to some people, but the article itself is well-researched and balanced.  I think it needs a little tweaking in the lead, but is otherwise of high quality.  Despite this, it seems as though a lot of people want to delete it for reasons that do not seem entirely reasonable to me.  I feel that this is a form of censorship. Al 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it's not already clear, you'll note that I'm not asking anyone to vote pro or con.  Rather, I'm bringing this issue to the attention of a group dedicated to fighting censorship.  In fact, I regret voting on this issue and would not recommend it to anyone.  It seems clear that people are not voting on an honest basis, so any participation only lends legitimacy to this censorship attempt.  Thank you for understanding. Al 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the scientists went mum (and still are going) on the issue of intelligent design in order to not lend legitmacy to the debate, they got a couple school districts changing it anyways. Shutting up about injustice simply allows a group to continue its oppression without publicity by your silenced comments. Therefore, if you've got a view, speak it up. Copysan 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli apartheid deletion 

message: Would anyone like to investigate as to why User:Pimpalicious was banned, and whether it was discussed beforehand? 131.111.8.104 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I strongly disagree with the accusation against my putting the alert on the notice board, I believe this is EXACTLY the appropriate place for this as this project is against ANY censorship in Wikipedia not just articles. For my full explanation you can refer to  the discussion page on the issue.By the way, I find it ironic that Hipocrite as a member of Wikipedians against censorship tries to censor both my opinion and the very crucial vote thats been going on that is all about censorship, in addition I find it more than ironic that I'm accused of a "non-neutral" comment on the notice board by a user that himself expresses a clear "non-nuetral" comment in the sentence previous to his acustion of inuetrality (number 1). This irony also goes to the comment Hipocrite posted below.  Tal :) 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This project was designed to deal with article content, not your whinging about how you can't have pretty boxes and call yourself a satanist on your user page. Go somewhere else. I'm not a member - I'm a founding member. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: N.B the fact that you are allegedly the "founding member" gives you no special privileges over other members, and thus your historical role is insignifcant to my argument... And note that I'm not going anywhere unless you block me (which will be a very clear cut case of rude form of censorship).Tal :) 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Calm down guys. It's not worth busting an artery about. Kaldari 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  censorship alert- discussion 

message: I would like to enlist my fellow anti-censorship members to suppress the campaign by one member to remove the cited academic references to Hans Christian Andersen's sexuality.  Her complaint is that her child read it.  Wikipedia should not be a place where references are removed because they mention homosexuality or masturbation.  I would post this to the notice board, but I'm not quite sure how to yet :)  Thanks! Wjhonson 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up Wjhonson, I'm keeping an eye on it now although I doubt you'll have any more trouble from that particular user (Perri Rhoades) a quick glance through their other contributions and it looks like they've decided to part ways with wikipedia for other reasons. Caprosser 09:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was wrong about Perri Rhoades going away, they are still at it unfortunately, I reverted their edit putting the material into its own section but I think its within reason to add the citations needed request and from what I gather that shouldn't be much of a problem for you to do so I'd recommend doing it quickly and hopefully everyone can move on. Caprosser 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans Christian Andersen 

message: Again an alert, an anon editor keeps reverting Paulinus of Nola when I've posted a portion of a letter he wrote, which was published in an anthology.  The portion I've posted is the exact (translated) words of Paulinus.  The other editor is reverting based on an POV.  So I'd appreciate support in reverting back, as I'm at my 2revert limit now.  Thanks. Wjhonson 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and the other editor refuses, so far, to discuss the scholarly issues of the text (if there are any), he just reverts based on his opinion, not that of a published source. Wjhonson 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paulinus of Nola 

message: I included information regarding the "wikiporn" deletions on the project page. CharonX/talk 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MFDs seem to be against Userspace galleries. We should move all the User space links and etc to this WP Talk against censorship space (note that a gallery has already been created within this WP talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery).The reason can be: "Pornographic or sexually explicit pictures are often the subject of some controversy, and are often the targets of attempts to censor Wikipedia. This page is intended to make sure any pornographic picture has its due process in AfD. Any time a box goes blank or a red link goes red, interested parties should read on the AfD or the Speedy Delete page to see if the deletions were a part of censorship or just normal goings on in Wikipedia."Also we should not include Commons pictures (since the scope of this project is Wikipedia). Fair use and otherwise article-only pictures should be linked. Copysan 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikiporn" deletions 

message: I am seeing some religious censorship in Inquisition article. Some people are deleting any references to Inquisition practices, statistic death count, or persecution to any religion references (hindu, jew). I need help
: I will look into this. Darthgriz98 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, expecialy when they used the term coercion, there was no coercion involved, more like if you don't join you will be executed and persecuted if you were lucky enough.  Probably someone defending the RCC or someone trying to butter up the article, it happens all the time.  Nobody likes to hear mean things, except this is not what wiki is for.  I'll help you out. Darthgriz98 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquisition censorship 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards