Talk:Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons

message: Great work with translating this. I think that the history section needs to inform if this department originated in East Germany, West Germany or both (unlikely). The description "the result of a degenerate imagination" leads me to believe that this is a communist invention, but I could be wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.138.216 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing this article again for the first time in years. This is an institution of the Federal Republic of Germany founded in 1954 (when the Federal Republic consisted only of "West Germany"), which is already clear from the contents of the article. "East Germany" (the GDR) ceased to exist over 20 years ago and none of its national institutions continue to exist today. The individual Bundesländer which were once part of the GDR were admitted to the Federal Republic upon German reunification. Valiantis (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification Needed

message: I added the redirect German List of Media Harmful to Young People and used it on the Die Ärzte page. In that context, the title works quite well: “The song was added to the German List of Media Harmful to Young People... ”, or  “... because he voiced concerns about appearing on the German List of Media Harmful to Young People... ”. (I am not so sure about the capitalisation, though...) I think this is useful and a better link than “... added to the German  Index”. I am sure a number of other WP-EN articles could link to this page.
Since I envision more potential links of this form than of the form “... appear on the list produced by the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien...”, maybe we want the article to be about the List instead of about the Prüfstelle? Surely people who navigate here are interested less about the agency and more about its main product? In that case we might want to move the article. The article's contents is mostly about the list anyway, not the agency. Arbor 13:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I agree. I think no more than a third of the article is about the list itself and the remainder of the article is about the history, legal basis and workings of this agency of the German federal government. Generally speaking, I think we prefer articles on the organisation rather than on what the organisation does. Valiantis 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added redirect, maybe move? 

message: I have a minor issue with this paragraph:
:It would appear that German citizens in general approve the work of the BPjM or are indifferent to it, since there is no broad-based campaign against this work. Much of the current criticism of the organisation comes from young computer gamers, whose arguments may lack coherence. It might be argued therefore that there is a broad consensus in society in favour of the BPjM.
It seems a little biased to me. There are a lot of "mays" and "would appear" there and no solid facts. From my experience the majority of people aren't even really aware of what the BPjM does and most people (myself included) have no real opinion about the way the BPjM works. Most criticism stems from inconsistency in the ratings and ineffectiveness at times (for example River Raid being indexed and Doom 3 not), as well as questions about the need for such an organisation these days where the people it is designed to protect are actually the ones that usually have easiest access to the media. Contrary to the paragraph's claim, the few active opponents of the BPjM are from the arts commuity, media industries and gamers between 20 and 30 years of age. I'll have to grab a source to back this up, but the wording of this paragraph really bugs me. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The broad content now in this paragraph was added some months ago by an anonymous user  and I rewrote to improve the language use etc., to separate out the pro- and counter-arguments which the additions had muddled in a confusing way, and also to remove the "worst" of the POV. There is probably more to be done, but I was reluctant to simply revert the additions (for obvious reasons) and didn't have time time to seek out additional sources etc. to improve the content. If you know where to look, this would be a helpful addition to the article. Valiantis 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: Great article.  I am sort of leaning towards wanting its title to be English, whatever name is agreed upon; however, we do have Académie française rather than "French Academy" (and I wouldn't even consider the latter). --Saforrest 21:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I just mentioned the impact of the German Index elsewhere. Seems pretty straightforward. The FSK ratings are enforced by law in Austria, and you really can't escape media from Germany here, esp. as SAT1 and Pro7 blanket Austria, too. samwaltz 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Index in other countries

message: I completely rewrote the section about legal consequences, sticking closer to the law (Jugendschutzgesetz) that forms the base for them. Note that the enumeration does not aspire to be a literal translation. Sometimes I have shortened it a bit, sometimes I have added more info.
I removed the paragraph about other countries. It generally made broad, unverifiable (and unsourced) claims I could not confirm from my personal experience (I'm an Austrian). All the video games on the index, for example, are sold without any restrictions here in Austria. Of course, if the German version of a game is censored, it won't be un-censored for the negligible Austrian market, but usually you will find the uncensored US versions in some shops. And if Austria uses the FSK ratings, this has nothing whatever to do with the indexing process. — Graf Bobby 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote section about legal consequences 

message: Had to remove the following external link because the page now seems to require prior registration in order to access the content:
*Almost complete list of all indexed and/or confiscated physical works (The menu is only accessible with Macromedia Flash. Please note the disclaimer on the home page.)
--Lennier1 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example list no longer available 

message: And of course, rather biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the entire criticism section is unsourced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons. 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/20090713100424/http://www.bundespruefstelle.de:80/bpjm/information-in-english.html to http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/information-in-english.html
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) 11:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons. 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/20051214155143/http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/993/33960/ to http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/993/33960/
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) 02:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified