Talk:Religious censorship

message: Article Moved from Censorship by organized religion  April 16, 2006 by me. I have added the ta;k from the old talk page.Angrynight 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: the "organised" qualifier is unnecesary, i think, especially with the rewritten definition the article starts with.  Doldrums 04:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The word "organized" in the title is a problem. "religious censorship" Or "censorship by religion"?DanielDemaret 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to "religious censorship"? 

message: This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate link 

message: I don;t have the time or means to fix it, but I tagged this as POV because all it seems to do is focus on the Catholic church, and is extremely negative. I also added a globalize tag because of this. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Then it could incorporate both censorship by religious authorities and censorship of religion by non-religious authorities. 154.20.253.36 11:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? But who censors religion? As far as I'm concerned, religion is all around this fucking world and IT judges and censors everything else!!!
I would agrre, the title as it stands now sounds like it refers to a list, which isn't the case. And as mentionned by the above editor, it isn't only governments which censor religions. Sfacets 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Censorship and religion" 

message: While I know that some groups have advocated censorship against Brokeback Mountain and The Golden Compass that belong to Abrahamic religions isn't it a bit much to say Abramamic religions in general? Honestly, I was under the impression that only a few fundamentalist groups even bothered to speak out against the movies. Should references be given for the censorship examples? And also the example from the bible doesn't quite fit into the list. Should it be moved to a new section such as "Examples of Censoship in the Bible" or maybe a broader "Examples of Censorship in Religious Texts"? --Deepraine (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing and Improving List of Examples 

message: This article seems to be attempting to deal with several different things at once. There are a few internal conflicts in the article, which seem to me to be to its detriment.
The article names as "censorship" the condemnation of works of art or science by religious groups, irrespective of how powerful those religious groups may be. Hence the condemnation of The Satanic Verses, which bore with it a very real threat of murder backed by a national government, is set alongside the condemnation of the Harry Potter books by religious advocacy groups with no such power.
Likewise it treats similarly instances of "censorship" which actually led to the legally-mandated destruction or unavailability of works, and instances which merely amount to a group putting forth its opinion that the works in question are not morally suitable. This lends itself to one of the worst fallacies that arises in discussions of "censorship": the claim that disapproval of a work is morally equivalent to violent suppression of that work. --FOo (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of article seems confused 

message: I have created the Religious controversies article. It should be used for both censored and controversial cases since they can be one and the same.  Some of the items in the Example section may heave to be moved there - hence the disputed tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Religious controversies" article may address some of the previous concerns

message: I can't find any record of a book entitled The Perfect Marriage, muchless it being considered banned. Is this confusion with the banned sex manual s:Married Love which was banned in the United States? I don't have a copy of the Index to check the veracity. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's apparently a Dutch book from the 1930's- the real title is "Het volkomen huwelijk".  There's more detail at the author's article here, but it's still short references.  --Clay Collier (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfect Marriage

message: Note that the example in  is new converts is bringing their own scolls to be burned. I can see how this could still be considered a limited form of censorship, but how is it a good example censorship, and thus one that needs to be in the article? -- 08:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - its more like burning your own flag.  Some people might not like it, but they are your own books - its more a freedom of expression. 173.123.91.136 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts 19:19 

message: I translated the beginning of this section from the hebrew wkipedia article "צנזורה". I have not completed writing this section. עזרא משה (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Judaism 

message: I think this page should be moved to Religious censorship which is currently an edited REDIRECT page, so the move can be done only by administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Support - This is a more common name for this concept, and would agree with the format for Corporate censorship & Political censorship. While at the same time not precluding this page from being the main for :Category:Censorship by religion. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: * Support - The phrase "censorship by religion" is used very rarely outside of Wikipedia. Jarble (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

text: * Comment. I support the move if the word "censorship" is retained in the title, but would like to point out a distinction in determining the scope of the article and organizing it coherently. There's a difference between a religious authority placing a ban or prohibition on a book or other work (of which a fatwa is an example) and having the power to censor a text or performance by successfully demanding that portions of it be removed or suppressing it altogether. The Satanic Verses wasn't censored; Rushdie got to publish the text as he wished. It was placed under a religious prohibition. As a user points out above, a religious authority can't censor (that is, actually suppress content) unless it also has the political power to do so. Examples might include the role of Roman Imperial authority in determining the canon of the New Testament, with several gospels relegated to apocryphal status; the Spanish Inquisition; Muslim countries that control the availability of books and movies based on whether they conform to the state's religious preferences; and perhaps (though this is only arguably religious in nature) the Israeli ban on imported Arabic books produced in enemy states. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Religious censorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150323184717/http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5869 to http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5869
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified