Template talk:Censorship/Archive 1

Historical Revisionisn?
Is Historical Revisionisn really a form of censorship? Shinhan 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing and minimizing historical facts does fall under censorship. However, note that the template is referring to the negative form of historical revisionism (negationism), and not the legitimate form of historical revisionism.--TBC TaLk?!? 03:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, good that I asked here :) Thank you for the explanation Shinhan 10:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image
I object to the image used on this template. Such an extreme example implies that Wikipedia has the opinion that all censorship is bad. This is hardly a neutral point of view. Voretus/talk 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What censorship is good? o.O Shinhan 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not personally saying any is, but one could argue that censorship could help in cases where it would avoid offending people. Many governments have also censored information. Wikipedia should not say it's a bad thing. That would be POV. Voretus/talk 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Help me understand what POV a photograph can take on besides an optical one? MrBucket 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should pose this question on some other, more popular page to gather more discussion. Like Talk:Censorship. Shinhan 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I came here to see if there was any previous discussion, so I'm just going to post this note here (even though I realize this thread is a couple months old). I agree with Voretus; I'm not a fan of censorship in general, but there's a world of difference between bleeping out bad language on TV and burning books in Nazi Germany. Besides which, it is biased to assume that all censorship is bad; obviously a lot of people think it's good and, in fact, almost everyone values at least some level of censorship. I'm sure we can come up with a more generic graphic to depict the topic. Kafziel Talk 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the choice of image. It looks more like a computer error than an act of censorship. Also, it can be claimed to be anti-arab and pro-tech and "recentist". Image for image, the previous one is better, I think. Book burning, is, after all, an "established" censorship practice. On the Censorship article i added an image of an actually censored page, dunno how well it would work in the template, but being from a european newspaper is a bit less prone to sensitivities. BTW, I was playing devils advocate on the pro and anti part. I think we should be objective and maintaining NPOV. In portugal Censorship forced artists into more creative wording for instance. Is that good or bad? Not for us (wikipedia) to decide, I think. Galf 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's lisence infomation is incorrect anyway. It's exact copyright status is complex but it isn't CC.Geni 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you refer to the web page or my newspaper proof? because mine is released under CC-BY 2.0. Also, can we please DISCUSS the image thing before changing it? it's a template and it affects many pages. Galf 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the warning sign page be excluded from copyright as trivial?Galf 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no. There is also text on it and GPL elements and unfree elements (firefox logo).Geni 14:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image. Book Burning and censorship aren't even that closely related in the first place, and that connection is a poor excuse for splattering Nazi-related imagery all over a wide variety of articles unrelated to either Naziism or book burning.  Mango juice talk 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Template too large
I find that this template, while very informative, is too large. I suggest we split the "Censorship by region" and move them to another template that is placed at the end of the article, like it is common usage in Wikipedia. Thank you. CG 14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on it's not that big! --AnY FOUR! 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New Image
I added an new Image! It suits the template! See becausde it's a body censored--Angel David 13:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Image
I propose the image at the top of the template be replaced with this image. I believe it is a better fit for this template, as both the body image and the current book burning image only illustrate aspects of censorship. Neitherday (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Censored image
I came here because the previous image (lips) didn't work as a censorship image. That image is attractive and interesting, though is more related to restrictions on freedom of speech rather than censorship. I found the current image of a censored body to be more directly and obviously related to censorship - and while it cannot cover all aspects of censorship (I doubt if any image could), it certainly does represent censorship in a direct and easy to understand manner.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 14:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the image has been a contentious subject for a while, and that the censored body was tried recently, only to be replaced with the lips. I hadn't intended to enter into an edit war! It might be worthwhile looking for wider consensus for which image to use.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 14:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The image was moved back to the book burning image over a month before I added the lips image. It did not directly replace the body image.
 * I still believe the lips image is superior, as lips are a metaphor for the communication of ideas (both spoken and written) while the body image only illustrates censorship on the basis of perceived obscenity &mdash; which is only an one aspect of the multifaceted issue of censorship. Neitherday (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see your rationale for the lips, and it is elegant. My feeling was that perhaps it is a little too elegant, and is lost behind the more immediate reading of restricting freedom of speech. As censorship covers many things it is almost inevitable that no one image will adequately sum up all facets. While I don't think the body image is perfect, it appears to me to quite quickly and strongly suggest censorship without further explanation. I agree, however, that a better image could be found.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 10:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that fond of the current image, myself. I would prefer a book burning image, but maybe. -- RattleMan 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the original image, I believe. -- T B C  ♣§♠  (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy)  18:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Methods and Motives, the Template and the Category(ies)
My additions of Retraction and Boycott as Methods and Category constituents of Censorship have been reverted. My removal of Revisionism as a Method and Category constituent has been reverted.

Retraction and Boycott are Methods and Category constituents of Censorship, and I would argue this except for the fact that inclusion of Revisionism makes such argument unnecessary, on grounds of consistency. Revisionism is not a Method of censorship - it is a motive for censorship, along with any other agenda including Historiography, of which revisionism is merely a subset. (Forced) retraction, in the meantime, is a form of censorship, where the forcing is the censoring act, and the effect is the retraction itself (withdrawing or canceling the original expression, potentially more-effective than mere suppression).

Boycott is a Method of censorship as an instance of the "forcing" in (Forced) Retraction, for example. Murder, imprisonment, lawsuit, defamation, blackmail, and other forms of coercion are also Methods of Censorship - not in every case, but in some cases, as is the case with Revisionism.

As for Revisionism, discussion above indicates that only Negationism qualifies as a motivation or purpose for censorship, and this only in some cases.

For now, I shall add Retraction and Boycott to the template and category Censorship, leaving Revisionism in place. If it should be decided to remove these subjects from the template and/or category, I shall move to remove Revisionism (negationism) from the category and template as well, in the interest of consistency.--Joe (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There have to be sources that call boycotts, etc, forms of censorship. Those sources should be added to the respective articles. Only then should those topics be added to this template and the censorship category.   Will Beback    talk    22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Gmask
There is a discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 3 that is relevant to censorship that editors here may with to contribute to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Image
The current image has nothing to do with censorship. It is instead an illustration of government secrecy. It should therefore be replaced.

Personally I think it would be better not to have an image at all. Images should be for clarification, not illustration. As everyone knows what censorship is, I don't see how an image can help. Bomazi (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Theoretically spekaing censoring information is censorship regardless of the rationale, so the image is indeed illustrative of the topic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, assuming a broad definition of censorship. I still think that the image is a distraction. Bomazi (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)