Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship (2)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporate censorship
Listed for afd already Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship and was going down to an almost unanimous delete. Then the Afd was strangely and unjustifiably closed as a speedy keep, as the article had been rewitten. However, the objection to the article still stands. An encyclopedic article is not possible here - all that is possible is an original research essay pulling together cases that the essay deems relevant. The essay will be unsalvageable POV:

Consider the current state of it:
 * "Corporate censorship is censorship by corporations, the sanctioning of speech by spokespersons, employees, and business associates by threat of monetary loss, loss of employment, or loss of access to the marketplace." - POV dicdef
 * "It occurs in many types of corporations, from entertainment and news publishers to sporting organizations.[1]" - POV
 * "There are many examples of corporate censorhip in the world of sports. Sports organizations seek to censor..." POV
 * "Corporate censorship in the music industry involves the censorship of musicians' artistic works..." POV

The phrase 'corporate censorship' is just a phrase - all we could offer is a dicdef. Any expansion of it will be POV as it assumes that it is appropriate to apply this phrase to certain events and ocurances. If you avoid POV, you have nothing left.

If you want an article about how corporations handle information release to the media - find a neutral title!!!

--Docg 08:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a comment here, Doc, without doubting good faith on all sides, the close was not capricious, the article is completely different, and !votes prior to Uncle G's rewrite could justly be called into question. A second debate is fair and reaonsable, but the characterisation of the close is harsh, I think.  I note that the usual anti-establishment mob all want the article kept on principle, and letting them get anythign they want grieves me beyond measure, but I do tend to trust Uncle G, he is not one of our problem editors as I think you'd have to agree. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems OK to me. Corporate censorship is a well used phrase and the article has numerous references. Rjm at sleepers 09:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither the references or use of the term are the problem. Can you address the issues I've raised?--Docg 09:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, despite the rewrite, it's still a POV OR essay. Previous AFD should not have been speedily kept, as it was most certainly not a speedy keep candidate. --Core desat 09:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep may have been the wrong phrase to use, but you should really look more closely at what the closing admin said: "SPEEDY KEEP without prejudice to relisting. This article is now in radically different state than it was when it was first nominated" - this is a well-written closing summary, and the previous AfD was most certainly invalidated by the extensive rewrite. Seriously, whe n an article has a substantial (good faith) rewrite during an AfD, relisting is almost always the best option. Anything else discourages attempts at improving articles listed at AfD. The threat of deletion is enough to put most people off investing substantial time in rewrites of poor articles - let's not make it any harder by discouraging relisting after substantial rewrites. Carcharoth 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Many of us who called for deletion stated that we believed there could be no article here. I stated that any re-write would be a POV essay (which it is). There is no reason for our views to be ignored by a speedy keep.--Docg 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So either restate your view in the new AfD, or trust the closing admin to see that the previous (very recent) arguments you made are still valid. Would you trust the closing admin to do this? What should the procedure for relisting be? I've seen relisting debates carry on at the same AfD, below a dividing line, and this might be preferable to starting a new AfD page. Is this explicitly stated anywhere in the guidelines? Carcharoth 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per the above and all that was listed at the prior AfD. IMO, RFerreria should not have closed it both early and as speedy keep regardless of the rewrite.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD no longer counts. Only the arguments in this AfD, applied to the current article, should be considered by the closing admin. Carcharoth 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the last discussion did not have a closing admin, and the discussion was closed after less than 48 hours.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 09:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops - good point. Closing user then, or whatever! :-) My points still stand though, that relisting is preferable when a substantial rewrite has taken place. Otherwise people won't work on improving articles that look like they are snowballing towards delete. Many deletes are of articles that could be improved, and that point is often missed when the article is in a poor state. As an example, the article was initially speedy deleted when rolling back to an earlier (less POV) version might have been a better option. How many people at AfD actually take the time to check that an earlier version of the article might be OK? There are numerous "wrong versions" in the page history of articles that woud never get deleted, so deleting on the basis that something is unsalvageable is a weak argument, particularly when someone makes the attempt to salvage it. Carcharoth 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - requires more sources including from those more skeptical about the concept - however I don't consider this to be a deletion criterion. For the avoidance of doubt, a POV / OR essay wouldn't have citations to reliably published sources. Addhoc 09:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply false. Many POV essays have citations. This has noting to do with citations.--Docg 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - if the title is really POV, can I point out Media bias among other articles that will need renaming as well, or is that less POV? Carcharoth 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Let me clarify why this should be deleted. Doubtless the terms exists and has been used - but we don't do dicdefs. The question is can we have an article on the concept? And the answer is no. Why? Because, at the end of the day, this is simply a label that some people apply to certain attempts at information control by corporations. Yes, we could have an article on 'information and corporations' that discussed this, and mentioned that some people used the phrase 'corporate censorship'. But to title such an article 'corporate censorship' is POV, as that's just the label some people use - and many other would object to. It would be like having an article on Clinton's impeachment under the title 'Clinton's crimes and misdemeanours' or an article on US support for the IRA under 'U.S. funding of terrorism'. Doubtless you could find citations for these that used the phrase - but that doesn't mean it is a way we should handle material. Would any of the corporations cited in this article describe their media relations here as 'our corporate censorship policy'? No - well that alone should red light it.--Docg 09:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just add something to the article saying that is it a controversial term and that most organisations don't agree with the label. That way you present both sides of the argument. The views that the examples presented are corporate censorship should certainly be somewhere in Wikipedia, otherwise we are omitting valid viewpoints. Your position would seem to lead logically to a merge or rename, rather than a delete. I see your point about the title being POV, so can I ask you where this material would be acceptable? Multiple merges with censorship and public relations and media bias? At some point, it gets silly and having the material in one article makes more sense. Carcharoth 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But is there a lot of discussion of "the label". If there is, fine - but I see no evidence. There's a lot of discussion of stuff that some people have called 'corporate censorship' but we certainly shouldn't contain it under a POV label. In any case, that these concepts even amount to a unified phenomena at all is subjective. Where can these be discussed? Well, the incidents are narrated already on wikipedia - and perhaps an a article on Corporate media relations might mention that some people have used the phrase 'corporate censorship'.--Docg 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - "Corporate Censorship" has to describe a point of view, bias is the basis of any accusation of censorship. Yelling "POV OR" is a bit disrespectful to the effort put in cleaning up a tricky stub. The accusation of original research implies either a misrepresentation of source material or the outright fabrication of stated opinion. This article contains neither. Despite the prejudices held by some editors towards the closure of the previous discussion, there is ample evidence to back up the assertion that Corporate Censorship is a notable topic of debate and has had an impact on business and society(find: ). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. OR does not mean false or misrepresented - it means an editor putting material together to create an essay that isn't together in any source. I see no evidence that 'corporate censorship' is a term under notable debate - sure the concept is, but the concept could be called many things. And whether all the examples cites are examples of the same 'thing/concept/pattern' is POV and original research.--Docg 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Sorry, just had to do that, with all the absolutist flair that entails. Actually, I agree with you, to an extent. The concept of "corporate censorship" is under debate but the terminology is uncertain. I don't think that the grouping of several conceptually identical analyses is tantamount to original research, although that term has a Wikipedia-specific connotation. So long as there are numerous reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of corporate censorship and comment on prior research, there is a sound foundation for encyclopedic coverage. Your concern about the neutrality of coverage for this controversial subject is admirable, but your dismissal is myopic and, in my opinion, unwarranted. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but Doc has a point, this needs an NPOV rewrite. It's one thing for us to say "John Smith says that Chevron suppressed a scientific study" and another for us to say "Chevron suppressed a scientific study". Better sourcing and attribution could eliminate these problems. The article tends toward the latter wording. The title, however, is probably the only appropriate one. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually what we need is a reliable independent source which makes the link from what John Smith says, to this being independently identified as "corporate censorship" (the article title) trather than brand management, news management, damage limitation, free energy suppression or any one of a hundred other concepts. That's my big problem with this; those who use the term seem to come exclusively form an anti-corporatist viewpoint.  I found very few dispassionate discussions of the issue of corporate censorship, as disctinct from censorship generically, and those I did find had some examples which were perhaps not obvious. Suppressinga report whihc damages a product or industry - is that actually corporate censorship, or just generic sneakiness? Think for a moment about the tobacco firms and their history. It may be better described as a specific form of confirmation bias or systemic bias, rather than censorship; and anyway if this is censorship then it's more like self-censorship in that respect.  Would you publish stuff that made you look bad?  If you quietly did not publish it, would that be corporate censorship?  According to this article, it would. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um. The subject seems to have some merit as addressed, but the title is POV. Where is the reliable independent source which identifies Time Warner's required changes to lyrics as "corporate censorship" as opposed to generic censorship or simply a corporate policy to ensure that sales are not impacted by partental advisories or retailer demands? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doc. This isn't an encyclopedic concept. At the moment the article is a laundry list of alleged incidents of corporate censorship. The only possible article that would pass muster would be one that explained the concept of corporate censorship, as opposed to that by nation-states, and how the transnational nature of corporations introduces a whole new set of issues. Furthermore, you'd have to find secondary sources discussing that phenomenon, otherwise you'd be engaging in original research. What we have right now constitutes no article, but rather a rant. Mackensen (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doc G and Mackensen and others are beginning to persuade me (I haven't !voted yet), but I am still puzzled as to where the sourced material in this article belongs? Which articles should include those points of view? (And no, excluding those points of view is not acceptable). I've asked Doc G and got no answer yet. Carcharoth 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. The material is already in various places. The synthesis here is original. But if an article on [Corporate media relations is thought necessary, so be it.--Docg 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Corporate media relations covers everything. One of the points raised is owners of media companies putting pressures on the press and TV news. That would need to bring in press freedom as well. I think some of this material belongs both in the specific articles about the companies (eg. NBC, GE, Time Warner, etc) and in this article. Also, as I note below, I think the balance problems are lessening as the other side of the story is being told now (see the latest state of the article). Carcharoth 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Do we have any sources whatsoever that discuss 'Corporate Censorship' as a term, and its appropriateness and use in debate - as opposed to sources that discuss incidents and choose to apply the term to it. If we don't have such secondary sources on the term - then any essay on the term will be original research. Any essay on the alleged concept rather then the actual term would, of course, need a more neutral title.--Docg 10:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the past, attempts to control speech came from the church and religious authority. Now speech is more likely to be restricted through governmental decisions, legal rulings, workplace practices, and pressure from large multinational corporations. / Corporations and businesses sanction the speech of employees, spokespersons, and associates through the threat of monetary loss or loss of employment. Corporations control speech by withdrawing money from, withdrawing support from, denying access to the markeplace to, or by firing people who utter speech that affects the company's financial profits. There are many examples of corporate censorship from the sports, entertainment, and business worlds.Timothy Jay}}
 * This is not a complete and neutral definition, but it does provide a good starting point. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note that this is a source that selectively chooses to apply the term "corporate censorship" ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC))
 * That's a discussion of a concept, not a the term itself.--Docg 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, I was a bit too quick in posting that, but I do find it a valuable resource for the discussion. Here's an analysis of one writer's use of the term, and here's a mention of the term in non-editorial journalism. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you then run into whether the concept of iunstitutional censorship (which I suppose would fix the titular problem here) is distinct from other forms of censorship. Censorship is the removal or suppression of content which is considered unacceptable for practical or ideological reasons (practical: troop movements in wartime; ideological: sending stormtroopers to smash the bust of Mendelssohn).  That is the core problem here.  Do we have objective sources which explicitly discuss the concept of corporate censorship as a distinct concept. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the original meaning of censorship. The modern concept is much trickier to pin down, though I agree that better words than censorship can be chosen, and that the historical meaning of censorship confuses the issues. But this is tangential to the debate and verges on OR. The sources should be telling us what corporate sponsorship censorship is, not us. That was a real Freudian slip there! Does sponsorship relate to censorship? :-) Carcharoth 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (e/c)"Institutional censorship" ignores the implicit economic pressure. Whether corporate censorship should be considered unacceptable or morally corrupt is open to debate, and this is perhaps why there is such opposition to attributing blame to the responsible corporate structure rather than more mundane concerns. This is an open and evolving subject that transcends commerce and enters the realm of sociology. While you are not likely to find anything close to an objective source in the anti-globalization and intellectual property circles where the term appears to get the most mileage, such mention is notable in its own right. This article shouldn't be deleted because there is a substantial body of published criticism to provide for coverage of opposing views. Concerned about neutrality? Find an expert! Someone well-informed in the field should be able to properly reference and delineate the history of the concept and perhaps provide a more neutral framing for the title ("Allegations of corporate censorship"? Or maybe something less likely to foster a mere list). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The original closure was improper. but the new article is even better than the old one. Nothing has changed - this is a noteworthy concept worthy of inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If nothing has indeed changed, then we have a consensus to delete.--Docg 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete would have been an improper result, given the lack of coherent arguments from most of the delete site. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the original debate was a clear delete per policy as failing WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:ATT. To argue otherwise is simply contrarian. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong on all three counts. The fourth, well, if the shoe fits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, this looks like another instance of a conflict between your inclusionism and your love of process. We had a consensus to delete - if indeed nothing had changed, then that consensus remained. But yo now seem to agree with me that the right answer > numerical consensus. I'm impressed.--Docg 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we didn't have a consensus for anything, really - the discussion was around 24 hours (barely enough time) and everything about the article itself changed. I've always agreed with you that the right answer has nothing to do with numerical consensus, though - that's why I know full well that deletion was, and continues to be, the wrong answer for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - while we've been arguing here, Uncle G has been quietly expanding and improving the article. I do see the points Doc g and Mackensen and Guy have raised, but, on re-reading the once-again-expanded article, I think the POV-balance problems are receding, and thus I'm coming down on the side of keep. Carcharoth 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep / Rename How is Corporate censorship any more of a POV title than Religious censorship which redirects to Censorship by Religion? Corporations do censor as common sense and articles external sources assert. the fact that it will be plagued with POV as many other articles are, is no reason to delete it. If, according to the category, governments can censor, religions can censor, postal services censor, why can't corporations? No one ever seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RlAiTprpXc. The POV in the proposal seems to be as strong as that in the article. Bjrobinson 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced iscussion of existence and extent of censorship at beginning of article demonstrates that this is an encyclopedic topic. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's about 100 times better than the original and can be developed further. There are some POV issues but they can be fixed. andy 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article's title does not mean that the article will be non-neutral, as long as allegations are paired with the corporations' views and you could have a whole section on why corporations censor things/people, they generally don't do it for fun, and one could argue that if they didn't censor people there would be a backlash, employees would lose their jobs etc.Mmoneypenny 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as some of the most blatant Original Research I've seen yet. I think Doc's and Mackensen's reasonings very solid on this article. --InkSplotch 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, quite strongly. Among other things, "corporate censorship" is the name of an entire chapter in Naomi Klein's well known book No Logo.  This would appear to be a quite notable subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep "Corporate censorship" is discussed in 10 additional references not yet in the article which can be found on Proquest, such as "Harper kills book; Author cries corporate censorship." O Brien, Maureen. Publishers Weekly. New York: Jun 14, 1993. Vol.240, Iss. 24; pg. 14." and "THE CENSORS." Gloria Cooper. Columbia Journalism Review. New York: Jul/Aug 2004. Vol.43, Iss. 2;  pg. 58 which discusses "disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry." As for "discussing it as a term" there is "Green Machine." Kurtz, Howard. New York. New York: Jan 28, 1991. Vol.24, Iss. 4;  pg. 38, 5 pgs, which says "Mark Green, the New York City NY consumer-affairs commissioner, crusades against businesses and corporation who practice "corporate censorship" or lure consumers through fraud." Nothing O.R about it. Much more than a dictionary definition. Edison 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to censorship. I don't see why this has to be distinct from censorship - how many examples do we need?  Neil  ( ► ) 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doc's comment In any case, that these concepts even amount to a unified phenomena at all is subjective really seals it here. General discussion of this concept seems to be totally lacking. The intro is a mere dicdef, with no discussion of the history of the term, notable examples or anything else that could be considered encyclopedic. From there, the article is an overly detailed laundry list of things a small number of people have said about corporate censorship. It's telling that the only criticism of the concept comes from TV guide 38 years ago; if we can't find anything better than that, then the article will be forever POV. In addition, the article is laughably US-centric, with absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. Remember, not all corporations are privately-owned.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's general discussion you want, the basic theory is laid out in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media and propaganda model (keeping in mind that what is not said is just as important as what is said). --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems more relevant to media bias. Do they actually use the phrase 'corporate censorship'?-- Nydas (Talk) 08:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Could be improved and seems to describe a current dispute in Ireland where (until an election was called) the Government was going to force through new contracts for hospital consultants which will prevent them from criticising the administration of health services. I can certainly add some relevant sources in relation to that. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep-- the previous article was impossibly bad; this is sourced and integrated. Not OR--the opinions given are not those of the WP ed. & the theme is notable. DGG 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: An AfD listing is not a great way to get an article renamed. Is the topic really about anti-whistleblowing measures, or what? Problems with OR suggest Talk page discussion, really. Charles Matthews 09:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but throughout weeding - it's a pretty touchy subject so it should be treated with care. // Gargaj 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it exists and can be proofen. It should be looked at where opinions of the editor are being expressed and removed. If the editor only summarizes what was stated in the sources, then there is nothing wrong with that, unless the summary ignores viewpoints that are in conflict with the editors own believes and being left out on purpose.--roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it would be *CENSORSHIP* not to ... but seriously throw a cleanup tag on it, find it a few more sources and it'll be fine material.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject is clearly notable, hence we should have an article about it, and the article meets WP:A better than 99% of everything else we host here. Burntsauce 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup/stubbify/whatever, deletion is just not the way to go. bbx 09:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Edison has convinced me that this is not completely original research. I can understand stripping out the OR, but the topic seems valid. anthony 13:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Censorship, per Neil. Seems to be a sensible solution. --68.105.204.85 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.