Talk:Suppression of dissent

message: Yes, this is a very crappy and problematic article which tries to convey a certain viewpoint as fact.  Can someone put an alert box thing at the top that acknowledges the problems with this tripe?  Sorry I don't know how to do it.  I think this subject has a place as a separate article from censorship because the suppression of dissent involves a lot more than preventing information from being shared "for the greater good" which is what censorship is.     It also involves attacking and trying to destroy or coerce the individuals that are dissenting, and applies to things that are in the grey area between action and expression like some types of protests often are. 70.30.16.243 (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes this is a very crappy

message: This article is more a personal essay drawing from a single flawed (marginally reliable) source and less an encyclopedic article. It contains far more opinion and spin than verifiable fact. I suggest merging the salvagable bits of this article with Censorship, since that is really what the topic at hand is once the spin has been stripped away. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I just added :Category:Censorship of science. I may have accidentally said I added :Category:Criticism of science. I apologize. It was the latter.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: There are lots of issues with this article. For one, the majority of the sources cited are from one person, a professor at the University of Wollongong. This citation, however, isn't one from him, but it's extremely unreliable, as it links to a conspiracy theory website with articles on topics such as pole shifting, ancient aliens, and psychic powers.
In addition, as was said with multiple people on this talk page, this article looks and writes exactly like an essay that I would write in high school. Weasel words are extremely common, and vast swathes of information are uncited. In addition, it is heavily biased, and it seems to have been written to persuade rather than inform.
I've added an infobox on top of the article to bring more visibility to the article. I hope I did it right, and a more experienced editor can help to make this page much better. 75.173.47.110 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honestly, this is a really badly-written article. 

message: concerns = 0% attempt to attend to multiple issues over a number of years - neutrality, reliable sources, singular sources, etc. Gongwool (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a valid reason for deletion. There are plenty of problems, but if nobody has done anything with them, that just means someone still has to. And that could be you. Make bold edits, propose solutions, do a more thorough review and post it to the talk page, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed deletion

message: I reviewed a two or three "cn" tags and found that these are coming from the same single source already cited in the article. This have led me to a suspicion that the rest is based on the same author. I have no interest in the subject to proceed any further, but it is quite possible that the rest of the text is based on the same author. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Suppression of dissent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021129171821/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified