Talk:National Board of Review

Untitled
My impression from reading in Lee Grieveson' Policing Cinema is that the early National Board of Review (then called the National Board of Censorship) was a means to censor films, not protect them from government censorship. Does anyone have further insight into whether the first paragraph is overly rosey about the Board's early history?--Nleamy 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph has changed a bit since then, but I thought I wouldn't leave this unanswered. Censorship boards tend to pass their costs unto the studios and can demand painful arbitrary last minute changes to film. Especially when this was created, they were around so that the censorship board was national and under the control of the studios, instead of the government. (Worse case scenario, every city sets up its own censorship board, and you have to make one badly chopped piece for the nation (or most of it), or separate edits for each city.) Until the 1952 decision Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, film wasn't protected by the First Amendment in the US, and any legislative body could have meddled with the film. This board certainly censored films, but it was created to avoid government censorship, not for artistic or moral reasons, but simple financial ones.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Added info from an article regarding the board's name change to remove the word "censorship". The rest of the first paragraph on the Board's creation is consistent with the article, although the Board was not the main subject of it. Deanlaw (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page to be moved. Enough support voters feel that the name is common enough that no further disambiguation required. Note: completion of this move depends on the target page being deleted. I have requested that, or any admin can carry it out. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Ged  UK  12:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

National Board of Review of Motion Pictures → National Board of Review – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Shortened title used most frequently by organization itself as well as reliable sources, in Google News. Wikipedical (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I see "National Board of Review" far more frequently than the longer name. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "of Motion Pictures" is needed for accuracy. I can't tell what "National Board of Review" represents without adequacy. The proposed title looks governmental. George Ho (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean "Starbucks" should be titled "Starbucks Coffee, Tea and Spice" (its original name) for accuracy? Don't think the 'accuracy' argument holds up against WP:COMMONNAME.  And again, the organization itself no longer uses the "of Motion Pictures" ending.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems uncommon for periodicals to mention "of Motion Pictures". Google shows no mention in USA Today, Deadline.com, The Huffington Post, Reuters, or The New York Times. However, Los Angeles Times does mention "of Motion Pictures". Considering that the organization's film recognitions are reported through the media, this shortening seems sensible per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE. Those who are looking for the topic will not be surprised to find it at this name. bd2412  T 03:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The resulting redirect will take care of George's concerns. As others have pointed out, we don't need the whole article lead in the title. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://nationalboardofreview.org/about/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Queen of Hearts 12:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)