Talk:List of banned films

Sadiaarabia

It is any movie is bannad in Sadiaarabia? it is a muslimic country it must be any objectionable material der is forbidden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.216.180 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia

The Russia section states that Borat: Blah Blah Blah was the first non-pornographic film to be banned since the fall of the Soviet Union. However, South Park: BLU came out ~7 years before Borat. So, this statement makes no logical sense unless someone were to state that South Park: BLU was banned after Borat. While it's possible that the movie wasn't banned until the show itself was (after Borat's 2006 release), the statement about Borat is either flat-out wrong or needs clarification.

yeah, I noticed this too. I guess I'll just change it for now. If someone knows something I don't, by all means, change it back, just please leave a note or reference or SOMETHING. --216.48.138.28 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy is banned in Russia?? It is shown on TV every day here! Sorry for my bad English.--95.55.114.153 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hellas

What is Hellas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.144.17 (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hellas is the Greek word for Greece. In most cases in the English language version of wikipedia, Greece is preferable to Hellas. Pnelnik (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Provinces And Territories

As written:

2006: Bumfights is banned in seven of the ten [Canadian] provinces and territories; the remaining three give it an R rating.

There are thirteen provinces and territories in Canada; ten provinces and three territories. What is the intended meaning? 24.207.85.160 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Paradoxically"

The intro contains the sentence:

Paradoxically, banning a movie often completely fails to achieve its intention of preventing a movie from being seen

Something failing to achieve its intention is not a paradox; it's just a failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyi (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The sentence is poorly worded. I think the word ironically is a better fit.--SEWalk (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, fixed. I've changed it to Ironically. Ruodyssey (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation required for the list of films banned in Ireland

A citation is required for the list of films banned in Ireland.
Is the current list complete?
Pnelnik (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For example on Rocky Road to Dublin page in wikipedia, it mentions that the film was not officially banned, though there were some efforts to surpress it. Pnelnik (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations are needed for a lot of films here, there seem to be a lot of people confusing controversies over films for an outright ban. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter Banned In Denmark?

This, I presume, is a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.16.112 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization Queries

Why is the section called "Timelines" when it appears to be more of an organization by territory. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency between the various sections regarding format. Some use just year, title, short reason, some use tables, some are using both. Should redlinked or nolinked films really be included? Should all of the lists be given a massive clean out to remove non-banned films (like China simply not allowing importing of a foreign film, which is really not a "ban" - I would think ban would be limited to films banned in their home country) and all of the unsourced? The lead and the "Banning versus censoring" are also almost entirely unsourced, seeming to point to OR. Thoughts on redoing them to be a single, more comprehensive lead that makes it clearer what constitutes a banned film and why it would be in the list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is titled "list of banned films", not "list of films banned in their countries of origin". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned films would imply they were banned worldwide. Being banned in one country does not, IMHO, make it a "banned" film unless it was explicitly banned in its country of origin/production. Considering the large bulk of films do not even get exported out of their country, banning in other countries is fairly pointless and meaningless unless it was explicitly banned when an export was tried. If Argentina says "we ban film x" does it matter if no one intended to even show the film there in the first place? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact so many of these so-called banned films have no references proving they were and why? LargoLarry (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very bothered by it. People just seem to be randomly adding stuff in. That's why I mentioned cleaning out all of the unsourced ones as a clean up option :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should ignore properly sourced bans of foreign films. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add ^{[citation needed]} notes to all uncited "banned" films. I will remove any still unsourced ones after January 31. Is there any disagreement with this? Joshua Scott (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of format

We need to either put all sections in tables or all in bulleted list form. I don't care which as long as we're consistent. (It looks like more of them are in bulleted list form so I'm leaning to that style, mainly because it would be less editing to achieve but also because I think it is a little easier on my eyes.)

What is the consensus on preferred format? RJFJR (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My thought is for tables, in spite of the work required. Every film in this article should have a citation, and possibly a reason. That data really calls for a table format. Thoughts? Joshua Scott (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add unreferenced films to this article

This article is (IMHO) a disaster of unsourced allegations and disorganized lists. Per WP:Verifiability, any controversial statements require a citation, so any films added to this list without a reference will be removed. Joshua Scott (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We're missing a lot of citations here

I don't think I've ever seen so many missing citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Dingo704 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I added all those, and I've been adding a citation here and there when the mood strikes... Even one more cite helps, so if you can, fix some of those, even if it's just a bare url in brackets. Joshua Scott (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For Canada, many of the citations (particularly the Maritimes) can be found by searching for said films at the website for the Maritime Film Classification Board. However, their site has been broken for many months. 142.167.183.109 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Focus

I've re-written the lead section of the article, I feel like it needed to be changed to better express which films should be in the list. My feeling is that (per the title "banned films") it should only include notable films that have been banned. I'm also confused by the "Timeline" heading at the beginning of the article. I'm not sure how we fit censorship into a timeline. I think it's already logical and assumed that the films would be listed in chronological order. Anyway, please feel free to revert if I've ignored some previous concensus. I'd love some thoughts on cleanup. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the "in their country" bit. The list currently includes both foreign and domestic bans, and IMO it should continue to include both unless it's split into separate lists for foreign and domestic film bans. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wolf Creek?

2005: Wolf Creek was temporarily banned in the Northern Territory to avoid influence during the trial of Bradley John Murdoch for murder. It was re-released in the Northern Territory in January 2006. Was this an OFLC ban or a legal injunction to prohibit influencing the jury? It sounds like the latter. The television mini-series Underbelly had a similar temporary injunction in Victoria and Blue Murder in NSW due to ongoing criminal trials at the time. LamontCranston (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mikey (1992) was never rated 18

It rejected outright. See here: http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/rejected.htm http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/c2df63d4540210dd8025660b000f83cf?OpenDocument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.231.92 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removals

I'm removing the films that I can't find sources for. I am going to move the removed ones here, if anyone knows of a substantiating source, please feel free to put the film back in the article with a source.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

• 1994: Blutgeil ^{[citation needed]}

Vietnam

• 1986: Platoon ^{[citation needed]}

Yemen

• 2006: The Omen ^{[citation needed]}
• 2006: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan ^{[citation needed]}

Iceland

if hostel 1 and 2 are banned in Iceland then noone is enforcing that law as I see them for rent and sale all over the place and last house on the left was recently shown on the government funded puplic state tv station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.68.240 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavy focus on Muslim countries

Why is there such a heavy focus on Islamic countries (particularly Malaysia)? I don't get it. Practically every good comedy movie is listed as banned in the Middle East or Malaysia. Is this all true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I cleaned out lots of unsourced content. The tags were from January 2010 or earlier, and the content had presumably been there for some time. Let's keep a tight ship here. No content without sourcing! Filmfluff (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for your keeping certain unsourced titles, such as those alleged to be censored in Burma and Bhutan that are also unsourced from January 2010 or earlier? Quigley (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an oversight. I'll do it now. Filmfluff (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They are gone now. I left a few that had recent "citation needed" tags. Filmfluff (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Evil Dead

the film Evil Dead which is known as Tanz der Teufel here, was banned in Germany (or still is, i dont know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.5.58 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Faces of Death Series

Faces of Death (1978), also released under the title The Original Faces of Death, is a mondo film which guides viewers through explicit scenes depicting a variety of ways to die and violent acts. It is often billed as Banned in 40 Countries. The film has been banned (at least temporarily) in Australia, Norway, Finland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Sited from Wiki. I thought for sure it would have been listed in your Banned Films List but apparently not. I don't know much about using Wiki, but if someone who knows what they're doing wants to add it I'm sure it will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonyflips (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

South Korea

I do not understand this. South Korea

   * 1996: Scream[citation needed]

Bans made prior to 1980 have all been lifted.[citation needed] According to the Internet Movie Database, there are no currently banned films in South Korea.[85]

If all bans prior to 1980 have been lifted and there are currently no banned films how does this account for Scream being banned in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.170.132 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it means that the ban has been lifted on scream specifically, it's just not been not mentioned explicitly. --Veyneru (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany

The Eternal Jew: This movie has been banned ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.81.144 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "banned" in UK

Near the start of the article we read: "this list includes only films that have been explicitly prohibited from public screening." But some (all?) of the films in the UK list have simply been denied a certificate by the BBFC. That is not banning. Such films could be shown in public cinemas if the local cimema licensing authority had no objection. 213.122.60.79 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

Hehe, so North Korea only bans one movie? May I remind you that North Korea is (by far) the most repressive and isolated dictatorship in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.20.76.11 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that there's barely any point in bannning films in a regime when it is virtually impossible to import most foreign films? That and in case you haven't realized, isolated dictatorships don't usually tend to give out much information to the outside world. --Veyneru (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Soviet Union banned many more films than just Komissar --87.70.68.5 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BRAZIL: UPDATE AND CORRECTIONS

I did a research after realize that the Brazilian part of the article was not updated, wrong or without sources.

DICTATORSHIP IN BRAZIL (1964 - 1988)

During the dictatorship in Brazil, that last from 1964 to 1988 several films were banned under the Federal Law from Brazil 5536 from 1968. During several years a project was being developed to find and publish every document on censorship in films during the dictatorship. The project "Memory of Censorship in Brazilian Cinema" released in 2005 six thousand documents about 175 banned films during the dictatorship. And, finally, in 2007 they released documents for the last 269 films banned at that time.

AFTER DEMOCRATIZATION IN BRAZIL (1988 -)

BEYOND CITIZEN KANE(1993):

As writen in Wikipédia article “Beyond Citizen Kane":

"On August 20, 2009, the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo reported that Rede Record bought the broadcasting rights of the documentary from Ellis for less than US$ 20,000."

"On February 14, 2011, the newspaper Jornal do Brasil (quoting the network's spokesperson) reported that Rede Record will broadcast the documentary in 2011, on a date yet to be specified."

DI CAVALCANTI(1976):

This film (short) about Di Cavalcanti was banned due a lawsuit open by Di Cavalcanti daughter, Elizabeth, in 1979.

68.115.67.210 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinidad & Tobago

All the films listed to be banned in Trinidad isn't banned. I have live in Trinidad and have personally saw all these movies advertised in theaters and have seen bruno and the king and i in theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.177.61 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Burma

Some of the films listed as banned in Burma are indeed banned - 5 or 6 of them, according to a poorly cited blog entry. The rest of the films on the banned list are, as with the Trinidad and Tobago entry, not banned. This is mere politicking on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.64 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

the US?

South Park (+ movie) actually banned? Perhaps the movie in some cities, but... seriously? I don't believe this, nor do I believe the claims of Kick Ass, Family Guy, or Robot Chicken being banned. Nevermind that three of these are TV shows, not films. This is absurd, especially with no sources. 68.227.169.59 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Banned in Italy

The whole section is ridiculous. None of the movie listened there is banned, since the censorship board cannot "ban" anything, and no member of the Church has ever been in the Commission. --SandorKrasna (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn. Need to think about it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

List of banned films → List of banned films by country – that is what the page is about, and I want to create a global, alphabetical list at the current page name (similar to what is now at List of books banned by governments). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're asking to move it to the title it already has? In any case, this needs to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves (where you have alrady listed it) not {{editprotected}} so I'll deactivate your request here. Tra (Talk) 05:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it but, you do still need to leave this to WP:RM so {{editprotected}} should not be used. Tra (Talk) 10:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Regarding the spinout articles that have recently been created, wouldn't a more accurate title styling be "List of films banned in ..." (note the inversion)? SuperMarioMan 10:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)