User:.V./censorshipnpov

Why the Censorship cat is NPOV
Actually, nobody has demonstrated why the category is POV. So far, I saw one allegation that it was POV by Humus, but my reply to his statement was never addressed.

However, I will state why it's NPOV. If something is POV, it needs to have several elements.

The first is some kind of (obviously), Point of View. The term "point of view" implies that an issue can be interpreted several ways. This does not apply in this case, though, because this category is definitional. Some may prefer to call the laws "denazification", but that's the impetus that created both those laws and many others. That applies in showing why the laws were made, and perhaps justification for the laws, but it doesn't describe the topic itself in the "here and now".

A point of view has two (or more) diametrically opposed viewpoints; however, this issue can be both censorship and denazification. They are not mutually exclusive, and so they do not conflict in a POV way. An example would be the term "hoax." In that case, there are two opposed viewpoints: "hoax" and "not a hoax" (or "true.") In a POV dispute such as that, there are two viewpoints which cannot both be true at the same time. In this case, there is no viewpoint directly opposed to censorship. Sure, there are viewpoints which attempt to justify the censorship (denazification). Perhaps those are right, but it doesn't make it any less censorship. So what would be the conflict? Censorship vs. Not Censorship? There is no conflict such as this with this topic. By the definition, these laws are censorship.

So what could the conflict be? That brings me to my next element. It seems the POV arguments against this topic have transmuted the argument into "Unjustified Censorship vs. Justified Censorship." For this to be the case, though, censorship would need to be a loaded word; and that is the second element. A POV category applies a judgment inherent in the word. Take, for example (again) the word "hoax." This means that it's just not true. By definition, censorship has no judgment of right or wrong, good or bad, or successful or unsuccessful. It is entirely neutral in definition.

Keep in mind what I quote to Humus: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality." (NPOV Tutorial) This is objectively true, as I explained above.

And that leads me, finally, to my last point. Something which is POV that does not contain a bias in definition must contain a bias in connotation. However, this bias must be two things: one, it must be extremely clear. Two, it must be through interpretation.

"Censorship" does not connote anything particularly bad. In Western society, it is in many circles looked down upon as an affront to free speech. But people do acknowledge that some censorship is acceptable; for example, you can't print national secrets in a newspaper. Depending on where you go, people may say censorship is evil or that censorship is good for stability. People acknowledge that some things can be censored and others cannot. One example of publicly-accepted censorship is pornography. Pornography cannot be printed in newspapers in America, which is essentially censorship. However, it is gladly accepted and highly praised. So obviously censorship is not an instant turn-off for most people (no pun intended). Apparently, people in countries with denial laws generally seem to favor these censorship laws, because they exist (and the countries in question are democratic societies). This shows that many countries in Europe are perfectly fine with laws such as these. Because of this, we can only surmise that there is no unduly prejudicial bias using this term, neither in definition nor in connotation. The negative connotation of censorship is too vague, as it seems to be happily supported in some places and situations and not in others.

For all the reasons stated above, it is a neutral category.