Talk:Ban Bossy/Archives/2018

Self-censorship
I'm not strongly in favour of calling Ban Bossy self-censorship, but that linked article does do a good job describing the campaign. Self-censorship isn't a bad thing. We all censor ourselves, or at least I hope we all do. Linking to that article adds context to this one. Nevertheless, I'm not strongly in favour of keeping it in place. I do strongly believe the editor trying to remove it needs to establish a consensus for removing the link, given multiple users including ClueBot believe it should stay. I'm also a bit concerned about the transparent violations of WP:SOCK happening. So, anyway. Do you think the link to self-censorship in the intro paragraph should be removed? Please say so here and justify your position, so you can build consensus. --Yamla (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Self-censorship - The campaign clearly promotes the banning of a word. Banning words is censorship, therefore the "Ban Bossy' campaign is censorship. The rationale behind the censorship does not change this fact. This is a WP:Sanitize violation by an editor who is offended. It's understandable they may not like the word 'censorship' but that's what it is—and in this case could hardly be more clear - 'Ban' anything is just what it says it is: censorship.
 * For our reference, the word "Censorship" is defined as: The suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body.
 * Because the 'Ban Bossy' campaign openly, plainly and regularly campaigns against a word they consider objectionable, "self censorship" is a simple and plain-spoken way of describing their mission, anything else seems like a clear attempt to WP:Sanitize. Lexlex (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In relation to Ban Bossy, the use of the term “self-censorship” has no official source. In fact, the source sited in the first paragraph does not describe it as “self-censorship”. The only articles that mention any sort of “censorship” in regards to Ban Bossy are negative opinion pieces. As a result, describing this campaign as “self-censorship” feels negatively biased and subjective which is inappropriate in the intro. Therefore, if we want to keep “self-censorship” on this page it would belong more in the criticism section rather than the intro. LeanIn.Org’s wikipedia page describes Ban Bossy as a “public initiative” campaign. My suggestion is to replace “self-censorship” with “public initiative” or delete both terms altogether and just say “campaign.” Nikkig11 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that a Wikipedia entry must source an entity's own marketing material and/or characterization of itself over a standard dictionary definition is one I am unfamiliar with—can you cite where this idea is supported? Because most any group or individual would cast themselves in the most flattering light possible, such a policy could almost never reflect objective reality and I'm having a tough time believing this would be supported by Wikipedia policy - but I've been wrong before! Perhaps, rather than 'self' censorship, it could be characterized merely as a 'censorship advocacy group' which is more standard terminology and for which I would think a word banning campaign would easily meet the definition. Lexlex (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)