Talk:Censorship/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, eg. in light of the recent dust-up regarding "SouBold text'Bold text'Bold textI took out the line "Censorship is very evil" from the very beginning of the article.  I didn't think it was an appropriate thing to put at the beginning of an encyclopedia-like article. Lime 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, though it's a trivial matter. Skinnyweed 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Censorship 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wikipedia has censored references to Encyclopedia Dramatica.  It has also deleted and banned the page on the GNAA (without regard for the deletion rules).  Whether the policy is censorship or not, the administrators certainly are performing it.  -Alex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.188.97 (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next

message: 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)
thread_title:  History needed 

message: 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: []  "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'sth Park"'s Scientology episode. Presumably you'd want to mention the documentary "OutFoxed," but also include censorship by the FCC; the FCC's possible expansion to new media; the McCain-Feingold Act; concentrated ownership of media vs. government restrictions on freedom of contract; reports that CNN held back damning info about Hussein's Iraq for fear for the safety of their reporters; the Jayson Blair scandal at the NYT; the "Fairness Act" rule for radio programming; the nature of political talking-heads shows where a liberal and a conservative scream at each other; the use of "blogs" as sources for traditional media; and Howard Stern's move from ClearChannel to XM Radio. Lots to talk about! --Kris Schnee 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another kind of corporate censorship - the use of civil suits to stifle critical speech.  This is covered in Lawrence Soley's book, Censorship, Inc..  I may add something about this down the line; others feel welcome to.  Rlitwin 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli Censorship? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "see also" list is getting long 

message: I found the list of rationales for censorship a bit oversimplified so I added the following:
"These rationales can often occur in combinations and intermediate forms. Historically, the military has often attempted to suppress bad news, such as defeats or high casualties, from the front not to prevent them from reaching the enemy (who presumably already knows) but to prevent the general public from knowing. They have argued that such bad news might hurt the morale of soldiers and civilians alike and thus hamper the war effort. This falls somewhere between the political and military rationales for censorship."
Historically, what I describe above is probably one of the most important forms of censorship. "First Casualty" is a good book on this.
Censorship in Portugal#The_Estado_Novo includes a few official reasons included in the law that established censorship. I'm in the course of translating the arcticle from portuguese, so proofreaders are welcome Galf 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationales for censorship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Danish cartoon and censorship 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corporate Censorship 

message: None of the claimes are sourced.   Blatant POV.  Censorship is not including partial documents that are available somewhere else.  If that were the standard, then Wikipedia would be "censoring" until all of Human Knowledge was recorded.--Tbeatty 04:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and am just about to remove that section, it seems to have an overtly political tone/nature.Dave 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how is this POV? It is just an example of a type of censorship. Remember, censorship and the introduction of dicatarorships often come incrementally. Just because you can still find the info somewhere else for awhile, doesn't mean anything. Metrocat 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sanitization" websites 

message: I re-edited the first line back to an earlier version because censorship, though most often practiced by government, and only illegal in the U.S. when practiced by government, is not a concept limited to government. On this talk page we discuss corporate censorship, religious censorship, and censorship by militias, none of which are governments per se, but all of which are, in fact, forms of censorship.
I think that there's a bit of confusion about that because the legal definitions tend to dominate the discussion of the practice. The fact is, information is unquestionably censored whether or not there is legal redress for the censorship. Others seem to have trouble separating the concepts of "editing" and "censoring" without tying censorship to the government. The distinction is that editing is the practice of selecting information to publish, whereas censorship is the practice of taking steps to suppress, burden, or interfere with communication of particular ideas. It's the same as the distinction between cops and robbers--both of them shoot people, but they tend to choose different people to shoot.
The last reason that people tend to confuse this definition is that censorship requires power, and the state unquestionably has that power. But churches have that power, too (e.g., the Mormon church and the Salamander letter); large corporations have that power (e.g., ; arsonists who destroy buildings where incriminating records are kept have that power; even copyright holders, from time to time, act as censors. Private schools are censors, though they are not governments, because they hold the power over their students to get away with it. 
Long story short, the Web is filled with definitions on both sides of this question. Half of them are wrong, no matter which half you support. But certainly, from the viewpoint of the study of communication, the concept and practice of censorship has long been practiced beyond the scope of government authority. Junkmale 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it again . Censorship is, as you state, not an exclusive function of governments. ww2censor 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and thought I should copy this from elsewhere to explain further: whether or not there's a better way to phrase it, there's nothing about the "definition and etymology" that demands a government be the one doing the censorship, as some say there is. You can find competing definitions online, but there are just as many, if not more, that don't limit it to government than there are ones that do. And to say that the "etemology" of the word requires it apply only to governments is a little silly--I mean, the etemology of the word is irrelevant to its modern use and scope. The word "dashboard" identifies a particular part of a horse-drawn vehicle, but it is just as properly applied to vehicles without horses. Etemology just doesn't work to limit the scope of language.Junkmale 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really it is very simple, especially as Junkmale says "definition and entomology' do not come into the current thinking, governments are not the only entity performing censorship. My experience is particularly with Postal censorship for more than 25 years and while governments are the most usual perpetrator of censorship I know of specific instances where non-governmental groups have exercised censorship on the mail. In that article the term 'most often' is used and I think that may be the best wording in this instance as its implication tends towards governments as those who practice censorship. It only takes one instance to prove censorship is not exclusively carried out by governments. By way of example, here  is a 1922 example of IRA mail being censored within a prison by the IRA on mail to the prison and this was not performed by the government authorities but by (a superior IRA officer of) the inmates themselves. ww2censor 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As addressed to the person who continues to revert this page to an incorrect definition that limits censorship to governments: show us where you get that definition of censorhsip, then. Webster.com defines it as "the institution or practice of censoring," with censor defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."   Dictionary.com shows that both Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language define censorship and censoring in the same way, without ever mentioning government.  Ditto Allwords.com. Ditto Cambridge English dictionary and its dictionary of American English.  The Columbia encyclopedia goes even further to disagree with your definition, stating that censorship "may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group." So what, exactly, do you cite as authority for your position? Junkmale 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Governmental" 

message: --- Begin cut section 
===Criticism of Unwanted Censorship===
There has been problems between people and censorship around the USA (and possibaly other countries) that it isn't needed. One Unwanted censorship was from the banning of many websites such as Action Flash and rumored to be banned RuneScape in school. Websites like this aren't
that much of nessesary of Censoring because they don't contain offensive materials (however Action flash changed its site so much that it included offensive material) in school however the Board of Education did state one fact that websites like this will interfeare with things like school. One popular website that was a blog site that is also banned is MySpace Teenagers wer dissapointed when their favorite blog site was banned as well. 
Other unwanted Censorship can be found in Media, Newspapers, Music, Even Events like Hurracane Katrina and Terrorism as well. People in all the countries think that Censorship in media is a way of hiding us from evenst that are dangerous. They also think that its a form of getting people in danger.  
--- End cut section
I find the above commentary has a lot of merit.  But in my opinion it is lacking in citations to reliable published sources.  The above commentary is controversial and not many people would agree, so it is important to cite to a reliable source so that the reader could check with the writing of the reliable source to examine the reasons and statistics behind the conclusions in the above commentary.  Would you agree?  --Rednblu 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting uncited section here for discussion and developing footnotes 

message: There has been problems between people and censorship around the USA (and possibaly other countries) that it isn't needed. One Unwanted censorship was from the banning of many websites such as Action Flash and rumored to be banned RuneScape in school. Websites like this aren't
that much of nessesary of Censoring because they don't contain offensive materials (however Action flash changed its site so much that it included offensive material) in school however the Board of Education did state one fact that websites like this will interfeare with things like school. One popular website that was a blog site that is also banned is MySpace Teenagers wer dissapointed when their favorite blog site was banned as well. 
Other unwanted Censorship can be found in Media, Newspapers, Music, Even Events like Hurracane Katrina and Terrorism as well. People in all the countries think that Censorship in media is a way of hiding us from evenst that are dangerous. They also think that its a form of getting people in danger.  
--- End cut section
I find the above commentary has a lot of merit.  But in my opinion it is lacking in citations to reliable published sources.  The above commentary is controversial and not many people would agree, so it is important to cite to a reliable source so that the reader could check with the writing of the reliable source to examine the reasons and statistics behind the conclusions in the above commentary.  Would you agree?  --Rednblu 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Unwanted Censorship

message: Was there an article on it that was deleted? It's odd that there is no page for it.
:Yes there was, but it was purely spam. --TBCΦtalk? 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship in Japan 

message: I really don't see why this section was included in the article. It's original research, in an unencyclopedic tone and adds nothing to the article. I'm taking the liberty of deleting it until a better alternative is put forward. It's unacceptable (IMHO) at the moment. Justinmeister 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  seventeen techniques for... WTF? 

message: Seriously, much of this is anti-censorship stuff, but there are little or no things citing the positive effects of censorship. --Pichu0102 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a specific POV problem with the article, let us know what it is so it can be addressed.  Asserting that it is missing the "positive effects of censorship" is silly -- what positive effects are you talking about?  I notice there are no sections on the positive effects of genocide or fascism in the corresponding articles either; are you planning to tag those articles too?  I'm also not sure what is "conspiratorial" about any of this. csloat 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a conspiracy article 

message: I've had a go at cleaning up the article:
:* There's now a halfway decent introduction (rather than an essay)
:* Sections reorganized in a slightly more encyclopedic manner
:* Essay and editorializm (including two paragraphs of absolutely awful WP:OR) put into a more encyclopedic style.
It still needs a lot of work, but hopefully this helps. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean-up 

message: I was going to add a link to the "Greenwash" article to the SEE ALSO links at the end of the page, but then found myself wondering whether it was an example of censorship, or an example of spindoctoring.
(One is blocking information, the other is giving false or misleading information.) 
Lies and censorship are linked, but so is truth and censorship - eg. You can block access to the truth, or block access to deliberate lies such as found on many racist sites.
Where is the dividing line? Does "Greenwash" fit in here or not?
Mfgreen 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say Greenwashing is an example of spin and manipulation, but not outright censorship. It really doens't apply to this article. -- Kesh 02:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenwash (?) 

message: 
I've removed the above code from the page. Google Earth's images are copyrighted, and it would be hard to argue Fair use with them, as Google licensed the images from another company. It's a bit too much of a legal tangle to sort out fair use from their images. -- Kesh 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth image 

message: It's pity that there is no wikipage about censorship in Italy. Berlusconi developed a very strong control of the media, including dismissal of popular media people because they criticised the regime.
:Then why don't you go ahead and create one? :) --TBCΦtalk? 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship in Italy 

message: Why is communism listed here? Don't capitalist countries provide oppressive regimes, specifically non-communist ones, with tools and resources for the implementation of censorship, quite often? In that case, since capitalist do so out of economic interests, shouldn't capitalism also be listed in "see also"? I have not added this, feel free to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.90 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link. --TBCΦtalk? 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is communism listed under "see also"? 

message: The freenet links are busted - seem to point to localhost IP. Anyone have valid links to substitute? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an archived version of the Cleanex Experiment link, but none for the Choron links.--TBCΦtalk? 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freenet links broken 

message: This WIkipedia uses name Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press.Xx236 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glavlit 

message: For what it's worth, I noticed a while back that the GE images of the US supermax pen at Florence Colorado has been altered to obscure some of the prison's buildings.  The redactions looked like they'd been done with Magic Marker.
Basesurge 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Google Earth Censorship