Talk:List of books banned by governments

Flotilla Eleven

Someone who doesn't appear to be too big a fan of Israel has created a poorly thought out all - caps rant about it. Please don't sabotage pages with your POV, just state the reason why.

By Country

This list looks very much as though it could do with decomposition by country in which the book was banned (and possibly further sub-decomposition for the rationale). Opinions please? user:sjc

Wouldn't that mean repeating some of the titles over and over again? Better have entries on each of the books (stubs will do for the time being) where details are made clear. --KF 06:51 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

A good idea, but I'm not sure it's feasible because so many books have been banned in multiple countries. The ones I added tonigt are from the American Library Associations list of 100 most frequently banned books, so I'd bet the current list would be heavily skewed towards the US anyway. Tokerboy

Maybe the way to do this then would be to put an ISO indicator and an indicator of the dates when banned behind the name of the book e.g.

Lady Chatterley's Lover D.H. Lawrence (GB yyyy - yyyy)

user:sjc

I think a more obvious annotation would be better - (United Kingdom, yyyy-yyyy). It definitely needs some kind of annotation, though. Perhaps also additional separate articles for, eg, the Catholic Church. - Khendon 14:48 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please see Talk:Censorship for a suggestion of a possible article on Government suppression of literature. --Sam

---

I'd like us to have another go at the List of banned books. I randomly looked up some entries: In the articles on Carrie, Ordinary People and The Giver there is no mention that the book was/is banned anywhere; Fallen Angels is about two different books; Where's Waldo? seems like a completely harmless book for children. Finally, the Call of the Wild article informs me that Italy banned cheap editions of that novel in 1929.

Let's use this as the basis for inductive reasoning. If we include all the not-yet-written articles, there is practically no information contained in this list other than the fact that a particular book was at one point "banned" (whatever that means!) in one place by one "authority". Now that will hold true for the majority of books ever published. Even innocent-looking titles such as Two Great Liberators: George W. Bush and His Daddy must have been banned in some faraway region until recently.

I remember crossing the border between Austria and what was then Czechoslovakia some time in the early 1970s. In those days even Austrian tabloids were banned behind the Iron Curtain: You were not allowed to bring them into the country. On the other hand, when, in 1991 or so, I bought a copy of American Psycho I was surprised at how easy it would have been for a 12 year-old or even a younger child to buy that book as well. And although the book is mentioned on the list I couldn't find any evidence that it was banned. Well, maybe by some regional school board, but is that worth mentioning? So where should we draw the line? --KF 13:49, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do know that Where's Waldo? was banned by a handful of schools in the USA due to an image of an apparently topless woman in a beach scene. I could add that if it'll help. (It wasn't me who WW on the list in the first place, BTW). Bonalaw 15:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where's Waldo? was banned by a minority of schools only in the USA. There is no need to add this to the list as it was and is still publicly available. Also Where's Waldo? is not just one book, there are in fact several so the line should indicate which particular one it is in fact refering to. Also as Where's Waldo? was a rebrand of Where's Wally? this should be reflected in the text and it should be mentioned that Where's Wally? aditions were never banned. [Waffle247 25-01-2006 16:44]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.205.45.66 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The Three Musketeers, which has just been added, is another case in point. Obviously, unless they are a vandal, the person who added it to this list knows something about when, where, why, for how long, by whom the book was banned. But again, it doesn't say so anywhere: neither in the list nor in the Musketeers article. --KF 18:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I note that Anarchist Cookbook is both in the list and in the paragraph about books banned for criminal content. Not sure which is better:

1. Keep paragraph dealing with (unusual?) reason and remove from list
2. Move books in paragraph into list and delete paragraph

Tualha 01:45, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would be best to have information on why books are banned, but removing them from the list wouldn't help either. Also, books are not always banned for just one reason; there can be several reasons for a banning. I think it would be best to start this article with general information on why books are banned, and then, with the list still existing, add the reasons why the individual books are banned within the articles for each of the books themselves. -- LGagnon

• It is a very unsatisfying article. Some the external links, such as this one, document the reasons why certain books were banned. It might be worth making a start using that info (although I don't know how accurate it is) to fill out this article. I don't think it's a good idea to start doing it on each book's article, for the time being at least. It's also worth preventing any other books being added to the list without the reason/time/location being added too. Motor 12:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(c&p of dialogue from talk:cosmotheism snipped)

There are no books listed which begin with a number, such as 1984 by George Orwell. -Justin

"The Diary of Anne Frank by Anne Frank is often banned and/or challenged in areas of the USA due to "sexually offensive" passages." The referrence to this, http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/ (It's under the A section) lists only two occasions where it was challenged, but not banned, and in the second case it was challenged for being a depressing read. That's quite a different story from "often banned and/or challenged due to sexually offensive passages". As far as I know, the actual stuff on sex from Anne Frank's diary was edited out by her prudish father before he allowed it to publish, leaving only the mild romantic subjects. I'll change the wording a bit to better reflect the actual situation. 4.239.42.130 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text from the opener:

"Some books like Be Careful Who You SLAPP were temporarily banned on the Internet and distributors intending to sell the book were actually threatened before the book was even published."

kmccoy (talk) 09:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the book "A Light In the Attic," by Shel Silversten was banned because it shows and illustration of children breaking dishes. School Administrators banned this book because they didn't want kids to get the idea of breaking dishes instead of drying them.

telecart (talk) 23:14, 23 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text about The Satanic Verse being banned in Israel. It is not true, and though I looked and looked, could not verify that it ever was true.

--Telecart 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text about the Satanic Verse yet again. It's freely available throughout Israel, in both the English edition and a Hebrew translation.

Need Rationales

I came on here for some better arguments on why The Catcher in the Rye was banned in so many places, and whether it should be today. Instead I found an unsubstantiated list of supposedly banned books, with an obvious bias about how bad banning is. We need rationales on every book--just 2-3 lines on where and why it was banned. mrcolj

Books have been challenged all over for many years this problem has progrssed and increased. This serious issue needs to be resolved, and soon.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Waffle247 says:

There seems to be few reliable sources sited for these articles. In order for a book to be listed as banned there should be good documented evidence to site this. There are too many books on the list stated as banned/was banned/nearly banned/protested against that contain little or no hard evidence to support these claims. As a good source of information I would describe the current list as unreliable due to the lack of good references and a distinct lack of annotation. These claims of editing/cutting, changing, banned in a far away land etc should be well substantiated from published local evidence IMO before being added to the list. By local evidence I mean evidence from the particular country or at least a reliable source, for example siting that a publication was banned in the USSR based on resources from the USA would be a mistake as the USA is well known for producing blatant propogander against its enemies. The same goes for siting any western resource as evidence for a book being banned in an middle eastern country. Therefore I would suggest removing, at least in the short term, all those articles which make unsubstantiated claims until this can be verified by an less biased source.

It is fairly obvious to most that occult orientated books are going to be protested by some of the more right-wing religous orginisations so I would dispute the need to add this information to the article unless the publication came under serious threat of rejection. I don't see the need for including bannings from educational facilities as this is not the same as the publication being legally banned from publication. For those articles which talk about educational facilities, I would suggest putting this in a seperate sub-set to avoid confusion. [Waffle247 25/01/2007 15:30 UK]

Expansion

This article should surely be widened to include banned and challenged books. For example, JM Synge's 'Playboy of the Western World' was (as far as I can see) never actually banned, however it was very controversial at the time, with riots and protests etc. The criteria for this list do not allow for this particlar work. Surely a lsit should be made of both types of books detaling challenges to literature in all it's forms, with those books that have been banned marked? 81.131.128.30 22:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)sdrawkcab

NPOV and some other problems

I've got some questions/issues regarding the current descriptions on some of these. For example,

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle (Banned for psuedo-Christian references.)

What exactly is meant by "pseudo-Christian"? and

The book presents an "unconventional" view of God. I quote: "A Wrinkle in Time has been banned by various religious groups that feel the book undermines religious beliefs. Some critics claim that the book challenges their idea of God. (If you remember, L’Engle uses some biblical references in the novel.) Some people think it’s too Christian, while others think it is not Christian enough.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (Banned for anti-family, anti-Christian themes. Banned for language, and questionable moral content. Also banned for "centering around negative activity.")

The way this is currently written, it sounds like, except for the bit in quotes, that Wikipedia agrees with why it has been banned (ie, that this article is making a judgment that the book is, indeed, of "questionable content".) and

A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein (Banned for encouraging dish-breaking - srsly.)

Um, what?

There is a scene that supposedly (that's the grounds it was challenged on) encourages children to break dishes so that they don't have to wash them.

I am putting a POV-check tag on here now. Also, I think if we're going to have descriptions at all, they should be consistent -- ie, have them for all books, or for none of them. Jacqui ^★ 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Updating...

I've been going through the list trying to find details and references for the books included. I could get bored of this very quickly but leastways we'd have a prefectly referenced list A thru C. Anyway... the books I couldn't find references for are getting dumped here for the time being.

• All I Need Is Love by Klaus Kinski - I should imagine this probably was banned at some time, somewhere, but all the other internet references I could find were (a scarily huge number of) mirrors of this article.

I'd also like to publically insult everyone who has ever clogged up google by copying the ALA 100 most banned books list onto their website/blog for frivolous purposes.

good point.

Kinski's autobiography was withdrawn due to a libel action by Marlene Dietrich, as Kinski discusses her lesbian activities in detail. After her death, the book was re-published.

No need to lose information

Try to refrain from just removing a book that has not yet been researched. Obviously, any book with sex, violence, politics, religion, authority/social-conformance are going to be controversial to someone. The list is a good set of interesting and thought-provoking reading. We can just rename it to some euphemism like that, if necessary. -- Fplay 21:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a proper ISBN format?

Traditionally the ISBN is written out with dashes (such as 0-8160-4059-1), however with so many electronic databases that use ISBNs, from stores like Amazon to library card catalogs) the numbers have been written without the dashes (i.e 0816040591). Is there a standard convention on Wikipedia? - Koweja 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the format on most pages on Wikipedia for ISBN's 0006375952. Just thought you want to know. TTFN. Whispering 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons Format

We need a consistant format for the reason the book was banned. In paren? Full sentence?

Czolgolz 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Horror

Shouldn't Lord Horror by David Britton be added to the list it was the last book banned in Britain?

Harry Potter: "references to the occult"?

Shouldn't the Harry Potter entry read "For supposed references to the occult"? I mean, it's a matter of opinion, isn't it? —OneofThem 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasons given should all be assumed to be from the POV of the banner; otherwise, we would need to add "supposed" to each and every reason. -- Jibal 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also find that questioning. Maybe it's because of the witch and wizard talk. Whatever it is sure is dumb, it's a pretty good series.

---

Punk18

What I also find strange is that the article says that Harry Potter is banned "especially in conservative Catholic circles." I'm both extremely conservative and Catholic, and I find nothing wrong with them. —OneofThem^(talk)_(contribs) 17:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Waffle247 says:

I find the article to be extremely USA centric, as with much of the articles on the wiki. It reads like a CNN report to be frank. J.K Rowling is an English writer so would it not be better to write these articles in context of this? As for the claim of banning by the Catholic church, this would have to come from the Vatican and therefore any local banning in the USA does not constitute a ban by the Catholic church. [Waffle247 25-01-2006 15;50]

Endless

Only the Catholic Church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum, has thousens and thousens of books. Unless we divide this page into many pages according to periods, reasons for the ban, or any other form of classification, this list is poitless.--Rataube 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs sourcing and info where and when etc. Skinnyweed 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bible

Why isn't the Bible included in this list? It is a book and has been banned quite a few times in history. Just a thought.

Other than maybe Roman suppression of the early Christians, can you think of an example?75.9.63.64 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bible IS in the list. Look under B.

Where is the incest in Hop on Pop?

Which page? Just wondering. Random the Scrambled 16:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That book isn't on this list and second. Is this comment really necessary? Zotdragon 20:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it used to be on this list... Random the Scrambled 00:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bans by date

This list is huge and difficult to navigate. I think it should be split up by year of publication, country, or at least split the historical bans from the modern ones. Bitplane 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Start - End Dates and Anne Frank

1. If possible could you add the ban start and stop date, and clarify the location of the ban.

2. Are we talking about governments limiting free speech or just some private organization "banning" some publication.

3. What the heck is the deal about the comments about Anne Frank's Diary? Could we add a more interesting quote? Who banned this book? no dates, nothing ... "A real downer" is this a joke page?

... After reading the reference on the Anne Frank's Diary, the claim seems dubious. Can't we find a better source? The Ban because it was a real downer wasn't really a ban per se. It was removed from some list of textbooks used in the state of Alabama.. that doesn't mean it was banned.

I've spent quite some time trying to find appropriate sources and more information about the items on this list and there is very little to go on. For most of the books on it I could only find references to it being banned (and sometimes not even banned) in individual schools. I can only imagine how many such incidents have gone unreported, so this list will never be complete if that's what it is aiming at, and the references available are often vague, as you have noticed. On the other hand if it were limited to only books banned throughout certain countries then it would exclude, for example, the phenomena of young adult books being banned in many American high schools, which merits a mention. Ideally this list would be the former and a more general article on book banning or censorship would cover the latter. --Cherry blossom tree 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

North Korea

I've removed the claim that in N Korea all foreign books are banned. I've no political axe to grind, but I've been there and the claim isn't true. In fact, there is an enormous public library stocked with foreign books given by American friendship societies.--219.79.200.3 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

With regard to the following entry...

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (banned for racist material)

Where exactly is it banned? In Germany, at least, the reason you can't publish it is the fact that the state of Bavaria currently holds the copyright and does not allow any kind of reprinting. However, neither owning nor buying/selling/trading existing copies is illegal.

It'd be nice if it was made more clear which country (/state/county/...) the entry refers to. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf has been banned in Austria, France, and in Netherlands because of Laws against Neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier’s. - RedNeckIQ55

Removing Americentric ALA refrences

[1] to state that the American Library Association has the monopoly on Banned Books is to insult the rest of the global literary community. [2] The ALA list of banned books is nearly seven (7) years old, ranging from 1990-2000. [3] One can purchase this book in the U.S., at major book seller chains like borders.

List of banned books by country

I think this list should be converted to a by-country list, or there should be a new by-country list created. A long alphabetical list isn't very helpful IMO. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case it was missed, this was proposed at the top of this talk page.

Anyway, I would prefer to see each country have its own page. That would allow room for political/social motivations to provide context for each list. Notable books could be included here. Sort of like List of newspapers. Jayvdb 11:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Banned Books Week

I removed the Banned Books Week section because it was off topic in what is supposed to be a list. It was also badly written and looked like it could become controversial. If someone wants to recreate the content I would suggest doing it in the American Library Association article. Seano1 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of books banned on wikipedia?

Maybe this article should include a subsection of "List of books banned on wikipedia", with a link to the main article Wikipedia:List of books banned on wikipedia? I'm not supporting any form of censorship, but if certain books are to banned on wikipedia, the list of banned books on wikipedia should be included in this article.

The background to this are two users (User:Hornplease and User:Lkadvani) are advocating that the works of Koenraad Elst should be banned on wikipedia. --Bondego 12:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this editor has posted several similarly accusatory posts elsewhere which I have replied to, I direct the interested reader to my responses [1], [2], and [3]. ::Hornplease 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No books are banned on Wikipedia. Those works you think are banned simply do not exist. Wikipedia is the pinnacle of human achievment, no sane person could ever critize the wisdom of the Administrators. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery Yada, yada yada--Dudeman5685 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alice in China?

I think that line about Alice in Wonderland being banned in China is fraudulent.. There must be thousands of Chinese folk tales including talking animals, so the idea that talking animals are somehow taboo in Chinese culture is ludicrous.

I concur. This is clearly incorrect. I am boldly removing the reference. --OinkOink 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pandas and People

Background: Prominent Intelligent Design proponents recently started claiming that this book has been "banned" as a result of the Dover, PA Intelligent Design lawsuit. After the book was added to the list by EndScientificCensorship, another user added the text below:

"This book was listed on Wikipedia by a colleague of William Dembski[42] after advocates of "intelligent design" claimed that Pandas was a banned book due to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision.[43] However, this view has been challenged[44] [45] on the grounds that the Kitzmiller lawsuit did not challenge the book's placement in the school library, and this precise point was explicitly clarified by the Court in a pretrial ruling in March 2005, which stated, "It is therefore clear to the Court that Plaintiffs only seek to remove the book Of Pandas and People from the Dover Area School District's science classrooms, and not from its school libraries."[46])"

That text has been removed by yet another user.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the author of one of the blog articles cited in the expanded entry. I find it difficult to accept the idea that the circumstances of the trial qualify the work as a "banned book" - the court found that a specific statement read to students in biology classes prior to the start of the evolution unit represented an unconstitutional endorsement of a specific religious view. The book - actually, a whole classroom set of the books - remains in the school library, and the decision does not bar the mention of the book in other contexts.

Personally, I think that the book should be removed from the list in total, but I do understand that other people may argue with this, and I don't want to start a remove-restore war. At a minimum, though, I don't see what (except possibly for length) is wrong with the statement I quoted above. It is well referenced and totally factual.Mdunford 06:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you be putting disclaimers on all other books listed in this list as well? I think banning a book from a classroom certainly qualifies it as banned. Kenny 09:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But it is in the classroom, it just isn't allowed to be used as teaching material because it's religious. Jefffire 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed--Pandas was found to be religious (and hence not suitable for teaching science), but the school makes the same book available outside of the science classroom. Are we going to add every other book that isn't allowed to be taught in a biology class? Vel 10:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Better add the bible to this list of banned books in that case, whats the difference? The bible's "banned" in science class too you know!

Probably have to add Dianetics as well. Seriously, how can this be considered a banned book without calling everything else not used in science classes banned? 137.222.42.77 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not the person above who suggested adding the bible. 137.222.42.77 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. It WAS a book used in a science class curriculum. It was BANNED from that purpose. Simple. The book was banned. It's banned from even being mentioned in the classroom. Kenny 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Kenny. The book was not "used" in a science class curriculum, unless you stretch "used" past the point where it has no meaning. The book was mentioned in a statement as a "resource," but that was the extent of its inclusion. That statement was ruled unconstitutional. However, the ruling doesn't ban all mention of the book, but only mentioning the book in a certain context. Mdunford 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The book is not banned. It was removed from the classroms. It is still in the library. This isn't banning at all. JoshuaZ 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is "banned" in the same sense as "Lord of the Rings" or "Manual of Home Economics" is "banned" from science classroom - it is not a science textbook, and thus has no place in the classroom. The book is still in the library, the children can still check it out and read it (as would the other two).

Kenny, are you trying to suggest that every time an outdated book is replaced by a more accurate one, the outdated one is being banned? Of Pandas And People was found by a judge to be inappropriate for a science class because the material in it was incorrect and unscientific. This does not mean that the book was banned. The book is still (as far as I am aware) in the libraries of schools in Dover. It is free to be checked out by interested parties. All that has changed is that teachers are no longer compelled to teach this book. Lamuella 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Teachers are still allowed to discuss the book. (And I'm sure they did after the nat'l fuss.) It's just that they are not FORCED to discuss the book. And the ID disclaimer (and only the disclaimer) has been banned from being read by administrators (remember that the science teachers refused to read it themselves). Perhaps you can show us where in Jones' ruling did he ban the book?

Agreed, this is not a banned book or a censored book, that accusation is just the latest talking point in a media campaign. A book is considered "banned" when some government or influential group makes an effort to ensure that the book is never read by a populace, either through fear of law or making sure that the book is unattainable. The Kitzmiller decision doesn't prohibit anyone from reading the book (science teachers and students alike), it doesn't restrict its availability or distribution (it probably helped by giving it publicity), it simply says that its content isn't suitable for use in public school science curriculum. It's strange that some disagree, because we can compare this to Wikipedia articles: If an editor adds something to an article that violates Wikipedia guidelines, and it's removed, did that editor just get censored? If enough people disagree and feel that this is censorship, I've got a backup plan: I'm going to write a book about the odd things I say when I'm drunk, and I look forward to adding it to the "banned books" list as soon as a local school board refuses to use it in their math classes. -Eisnel 22:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

From the ALA.org site: "A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection."

Of Pandas and People is intended to be a science book, written by scientists who believe it is science. Among other things, it discusses biology and fossils. Some believe that is science, some do not. Those who believe it is not science sought to ban it from science classes and ban the brief message inviting students to read it. They were successful, unlike most challenges. People have a right to their point of view as to whether it is science or not. But if they ban it, then we should call it like it is.

No, it was written by religious prosyletizers, and was intended to be religious proselytization in the guise of science. Regardless of what some believe, the book, like your statement, is full of falsehoods. The book was never banned or challenged or anything close to that; rather, the mandate to mention the book was ruled unlawful. -- Jibal 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that science is not and should not be a matter of points of view. What is or is not science is a matter of evidence. If I put forward a teaching plan centred around geocentrism and how the sun orbited the earth, there is no way I would be allowed to teach it in a physics class. If I has a book on the subject, there is no way it would be used as a class text. Not because the book was being banned, or otherwise censored, but because the science I was trying to teach was faulty. This isn't a matter of opinion. To make matters worse for the Dover school board, the book they were trying to teach in science class was not just bad science. It was in fact religion masquerading as bad science. The teaching of creationism in science classes is specifically barred by the decision of Edwards vs Aguillard. What the plaintiffs were able to show without a doubt in the Kitzmiller case is that Of Pandas And People is a creationist textbook, first written to support creationist lesson plans and then adapted (seemingly by little more than a find and replace) to support "intelligent design" lesson plans. The books on the banned books list represent in the main titles removed for ideological and political reasons. Of Pandas And People was removed from the classroom (but kept in the library) for scientific reasons. Lamuella 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What a weak argument, its the old creationist ' My PoV is as valid as any other PoV. Which in itself is interesting since in actual fact, creationists like this idea only when it suits them, the rest of the time, theres only one PoV that matters to creationists-theirs. Whats outrages can we expect to see next, flat earth texts being rejected in astronomy classes? Maybe we should encourage instructional books in bloodletting from say...the 10th century into modern medical schools. Wouldnt want to be acused of banning 'alternative' points of view now would we .... This whole P&P epsisode is just gist for the creationist propaganda mill, nothing more. They couldnt get there thin-knowledge free garbage into an science class, so there fallback position is to milk this fake 'banned' book angle for all its worth. As noted, if the critera for 'banned book' is as loose as this, then really, the concept itself has little meaning. Removeing it from the list of 'banned' books is only right and proper, since it never qualified in the 1st place. Context matters...a lot.

From the user that added the book: I am amazed that so much namecalling has gone on here against the change to put Of Pandas and People as a Banned Book, calling this "adolescent vandalism." Of course users are correct that "Of Pandas and People" was not removed from the library in Dover. But while looking at this page, I could not find any definition that limited books on the list to those which were removed from the library. I therefore felt it was appropriate to use the definition of a "banned book" from American Library Association (ALA) -- see http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wdcb

Clearly the American Libraries Association defines a "banning" as something which was challenged and later removed from the curriculum:

"A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection." (from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#wdcb emphasis added)

The Dover plaintiffs challenged Of Pandas and People to attempt to have it removed from usage in the Dover biology curriculum. They won their challenge. Ergo, under the ALA definition, it is banned book. There are legitimate reasons for including this book, so please stop the tactic namecalling this change "adolescent vandalism" and realize that there are serious reasons for this addition: the Dover plaintiffs successfully removed the textbook from the Dover curriculum. I request that namecallers regarding this change against me need to either two things: (a) calm down; (b) put a clear definition of what you mean by a banned book and define. If you define a banned book as mere removal from a library, then you need to justify why you contravene the ALA definition. If you accept the ALA definition, then you need to uncensor the addition of Of Pandas and People to the list. Censorship and namecalling is always unproductive and bad.EndScientificCensorship 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice piece of original research, which we do not allow here. Do you have some relibale non-partisan sources that state that the book is banned? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, they do not consider "Pandas and People" to be a banned book (from http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php). With all the appeals to the ALA's defination, did none of you ID activists consider that you might want to ask the experts at the ALA? But I guess, that is par for the course for a bunch of pseudoscientists. 152.14.14.202 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is also a bit amusing since the defense specifically claimed that they were not "teaching" or including it in the curriculum but "only mentioning" so by the defenses own defintion this is not a banned book. I am continually amazed at how the ID/creationist movement thinks, they claim A, the courts say no to A and then a months or years later the IDers try to act like they never said A at all. Furthermore, I am curious if any of the above users (who let's be blunt are only here because they've been directed here by Dembski et al. and have no real interest in helping this encyclopedia) want us to list other textbooks such the creationist textbook "Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity" that was ruled as innappropriate in Hendren v. Campbell. JoshuaZ 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Kitzmiller v Dover ruling you cannot help but notice children are free to read the creationist text, Pandas and People, they still have copies in the school library. The creationist text, Pandad and People, was removed from the science class when it was found to be a creationist text and not scientific. Note they also do not use Penthouse in high school sex education classes because it is not sex education. Shall we add Penthouse as a censored/banned text since school disctricts refuse to use Penthouse in sex-ed classes? I notice that they do not use Playboy in p.e. classes in Dover is that censorship/banning as well? To those religious creationists who want Pandas and People to be listed as a banned book, please get real. Mr Christopher 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Per a recent post at The Questionable Authority, the ALA do not consider Of Pandas And People a banned book.[4]. Deborah Caldwell-Stone stated that the Kitzmiller case was a challenge of school board policy, not of the book itself. Lamuella 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia list of banned books features books from the American Library Association's "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books," not the 100 most frequently "banned" books. The ALA website says, "Each year, the American Library Association (ALA) is asked why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,' since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned, but "merely" challenged." [5] (emphasis added). Also, the ALA website clearly indicates that the designation "banned book" includes books that have been banned from school curricula but not banned from school libraries or other libraries -- e.g., the ALA website says, "Challenges . . . are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library." (emphasis added) An oral statement suggesting that students read Pandas was an official part of the curriculum in the Dover Area school district. In Kitzmiller v. Dover[6], a federal judge banned this oral statement. The judge's written opinion refers to this oral statement as a "curriculum change" 48 times. Also, "Curriculum Committee" appears 24 times in the opinion and "curriculum controversy" appears 9 times. There is no question that the judge banned the book from the curriculum -- even the mere mention of the book was banned from the curriculum. In contrast, most of the books that the ALA featured during Banned Books Week were not even banned but were only challenged, as was noted above. So ALA-listed books that were only challenged are accepted for the Wikipedia list of banned books while Pandas -- a truly banned book -- is excluded.

Also, Wikipedia's list contains the following entry: "Rage" from The Bachman Books by Richard Bachman, pseudonym for Stephen King self-imposed ban after the Columbine Shooting." That is hardly a "banned book" for purposes of this list.

Also, the list is only supposed to include books that have actually been banned or challenged and not books that have the potential to be banned or challenged. Comparing Pandas to books that have the potential to be banned or challenged is specious. If any school district is dumb enough to use a bible as a text in a science class and the bible gets banned as a result, then the bible should be listed as a banned book. Those are the rules.

The Wikipedia list of banned books has lots of books that look like they shouldn't be there -- but that does not change the fact that they were challenged or banned. For example, I saw the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary in the list, and I found that the ALA does list this as a challenged book.

Also, the ALA said that its records showed that the Pandas book was challenged in 1993 [7], qualifying the book for the ALA list (though not the top 100) even without considering the Kitzmiller decision.

My last Pandas entry (which was censored) to the Wikipedia list contained the disclaimer "some claim that this is not really a "'banned book,'" followed by a link to a debate on the issue. That is an NPOV (neutral point of view) statement. It is not -- as has been falsely claimed -- an OR (original research) statement because it does not contain my personal views or a link to my personal views, except for my personal view that a significant controversy exists. Those who are not satisfied with the link I gave are free to add other links, including links to their own personal views (because I gave only one link, I felt obligated to give a link to an open debate on the issue). Larry Fafarman 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice piece of original research, which we do not allow here. Do you have some relibale non-partisan sources that state that the book is banned? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

An entry that is accompanied by a disclaimer stating that the entry is disputed or controversial should not count as "original research." Only entries that are presented as absolute truth and undisputed should count as original research. The No original research article says: "The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article." It is of course desirable to avoid cluttering up Wikipedia articles with long discussions and debates of controversial issues, but this can be avoided by links to external websites -- these links take up very little space in Wikipedia. The No original research article says that the three content-governing policies of Wikipedia -- NPOV(neutral point of view), Verifiability, and No Original Research -- are complementary and should not be viewed in isolation from one another. The above statement views the latter two policies in isolation at the expense of the NPOV policy. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to require verification that a book is banned because the Wikipedia list includes ALA-listed books which have only been challenged. Larry Fafarman 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry, your whole reasoning still is original research, how you want to twist it. Come up with that reliable non-partisan source that conforms that the book is banned and we talk further. And yes, maybe we have to delete many entries that are just challenged books, I would be in favour of that-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kim van der Linde said ( 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ) --

Larry, your whole reasoning still is original research, how you want to twist it.

No, you are the one who is twisting it. My interpretation is consistent with the spirit of the Wikipedia content-governing policies -- yours is not. I take the NPOV policy into consideration when interpreting the No Original Research and Verifiability policies -- you do not. You don't address my specific points but just keep dogmatically repeating your same shopworn claim over and over again like a broken phonograph record.

Come up with that reliable non-partisan source that conforms that the book is banned and we talk further. And yes, maybe we have to delete many entries that are just challenged books, I would be in favour of that.

Then all or most of the ALA-listed books in the Wikipedia list would have to be deleted, because the ALA has stated that most of the books in its 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books list have never actually been banned. Also, there must be some books in the Wikipedia list that are difficult or impossible to verify as having been banned or challenged. If it bothers you that the list includes books that have only been challenged, then maybe the title of the article should be changed to "List of banned and challenged books." Also, I have provided verification that the ALA considers Pandas to be a challenged book -- the ALA records show that the book was challenged in 1993. Larry Fafarman 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your second paragraph is correct. Many of the books in this list should not be in it. If you'd like to improve it by removing those books that have never been banned and documenting when, where and according to who the remainder have been banned then that would be great. It's a lot of work and I suspect a better approach would be to start from scratch, only including books that have definitely been banned somewhere and holding new entries to high standards. Otherwise, the fact that you see good practice being violated in one instance does not give you the right to violate it in another. --Cherry blossom tree 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Fafarman it is difficult to assume good faith on your part when your personal blog calls for an edit war here concerning Pandas and People, you admit to highjacking threads on other blogs on the same subject and being as disruptive as you can, and you are attempting to lead a campaign on your blog to have the ALA list Pandas as a banned book. This is an online encyclopedia, not a place to advance your political cause(s). Currently Pandas and People is not a banned book so that should be the end of the discussion. It's odd that you want Pandas and People to be banned, why do you hate that book so much? Mr Christopher 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherry blossom tree said ( 15:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ) --

If you'd like to improve it by removing those books that have never been banned and documenting when, where and according to who the remainder have been banned then that would be great. It's a lot of work and I suspect a better approach would be to start from scratch, only including books that have definitely been banned somewhere and holding new entries to high standards.

So you think that a book that was only challenged once and banned once in some hicktown should be on the list but that a book that was challenged a thousand times across the country but never banned should not? Also, many of the books in the list are not banned now but were banned in the past.

Distinctions between banned and challenged books can be made either in comments or in links that accompany the entries in the list.

Even the ALA list does not have separate lists for banned books and challenged books. The ALA lists of challenged books on the ALA website do not even show which of the books have actually been banned.

If you want to have a simon-pure list that contains only banned books, then why don't you start your own separate list on Wikipedia? Larry Fafarman 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that books that have been banned have more of a claim to be on a list of books that have been banned than books that have not been banned. I think that's pretty clear cut. If you want to have a list of books that have been merely challenged then you are welcome to start your own separate list on Wikipedia or elsewhere. --Cherry blossom tree 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of destroying the current list, its name should be changed to "List of banned and challenged books" and then you can start a separate list of books that have actually been banned. Larry Fafarman 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You think this list should be renamed and given a new purpose and then create a new list which will have the name and purpose of the old list? This seems like a long way round. Why not just make a new list to fulfil the purpose you want for it? I'm puzzled. --Cherry blossom tree 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The current list is long established -- it is ridiculous to propose destroying this list in order to create your new list. You should create your own list separately, maybe using the current list as a starting point. You are going to have a hard time finding out which books were actually banned -- for example, the American Library Association's website does not say which challenged books were actually banned, and presumably some bans are not reported to the ALA (as far as I can remember, the ALA says that there about 4-5 unreported challenges for every reported challenge). I think a much better idea would be to just add comments or notations to the present list to denote which books were determined to have been actually banned.

Anyway, you are changing the subject in order to try to duck the original issue here -- whether Pandas should be added to the list. If the book list were, say, just an ALA list, or if the list had specific criteria for listing, then I would not try to add a book which clearly did not belong, but that is not the case here. The current list even includes a book titled "Rage" which was "self-banned" by the author (with the concurrence of the publisher). Larry Fafarman 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

semi protected

I have semi protected the page because of the continued reinsertion of 'Of Pandas and People', and I will not hesitate to full protect it. People have been encouraged to add this book to this page at a blog: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1652 However, blogs are not a reliable source, see WP:RS. If there is a reliable non-partisan source that says that this book is banned, we add it, and it can be discussed here at the talk page. Just reinserting it without discussion is not the way wikipedia works. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The author of the blog "I'm From Missouri" has promised on his blog: http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/ to continue an "editing war" to put the book Of People and Pandas on this list. He is aware that it has not actually been banned anywhere but believes that claims of victimhood may support his cause. It is a shame that a Wikipedia entry has been politicized.

Yeah, the trick works always. Either you get your way, or you are the victim. Pretty pathetic that they have to resort to edit warring already to get their point accross, what is next, treats to bomb science departments? People who are winning (as they claim) do not need bad tactics like this, they will have their arguments. I am sure they will have no issue in convincing the American Library Association to add it, and is so, we will add it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All the creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute have to do to get their point accross is show us the science. It's almost been a year since they lost in Dover and the Intelligent Design movement is no closer to producing any science than they were last year, or the year before, etc. This is yet another attack on Wiki lead by the Discovery Institute. The lost in Dover they lost in California and they know they'll lose in any court in the country so they are now resorting to starting a propaganda war they think they can win by manipulating Wikipedia. The Discovery Institute has publicly admitted they have had their employees try and manipulate other Wiki articles so this is nothing new. They have achieved none of the goals stated in their Wedge Strategy so they now resort to adolescent vandalism and such to advance their religious cause. Again, all they have to do to get their point accross is show us the science. Mr Christopher 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Challenged books

It seems that there are books on the list that are nowhere banned, just challenged, which is of course something that everybody can do with every book. As such, I think any book that is just challenged should be removed from this list. Objections? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me. Mr Christopher 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's entirely sensible. I spent quite some time about a year ago trying to find sources for the books on this list and I think most of the books that have been challenged were also banned at least somewhere, even if it was only one school library. I'm not entirely convinced that even this qualifies as being banned in the sense that The Age of Reason, say, was banned - people could still read them, they just couldn't borrow them from a specific library. I wonder if it would be worth separating these from books that have been banned from a whole country. Thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 17:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a big objection from me. So you are saying that a book that was only challenged once and banned once in some hicktown should be on the list whereas a book that was challenged a thousand times but never banned should not be. First you folks said that the American Library Association is a big authority on the subject and now you essentially want to delete all or most of the ALA-listed books from the Wikipedia list because most of the books on the ALA list were only challenged but never banned. Books that have been banned and books that have only been challenged can be distinguished by comments, notations and links that accompany the entries. If you folks want a simon-pure list that contains only books that have actually been banned, then IMO you should start a separate list. Larry Fafarman 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a very simple solution to the controversies here. Anyone who thinks that a book on the list does not belong there can simply add the comment "this entry is disputed," or something like that, and add a very brief statement why and/or add a link or links to external websites containing personal views or debates about the issue. Since the websites are external, there is no suggestion that Wikipedia endorses the viewpoints that are presented in them. Other readers can add their own links. Using external links avoids cluttering up Wikipedia with long discussions and debates on controversial issues. I assert that any personal views that are clearly identified as such and that do not take up a significant amount of Wikipedia space do not violate the No Original Research and Verifiability policies of Wikipedia.

Of course, entries that clearly do not belong should not be added in any case. For example, if the Wikipedia list were just a copy of a list of the American Library Association, an extraneous entry should not be added with the note that the ALA should have included the book in the list. But that is clearly not the situation here.

That is the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) way of doing it.

I might add that I think that the idea of having a special list of books that have actually been banned is probably impractical because it may be difficult or impossible to determine whether or not some books have actually been banned. For example, the American Library Association website does not indicate which challenged books have actually been banned and presumably many bans are not reported to the ALA (the ALA says that huge numbers of challenges are unreported). Larry Fafarman 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your solution is unworkable. People can add commentaries to articles? Who? How many? Based on what? Also, there is life beyond the American Library Association - books have been banned in the rest of the world and before the ALA was founded which they do not document. As you point out, they do not even record when books are banned in America today, so they are of little relevance to this article. --Cherry blossom tree 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cherry blossom tree 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)said --

Your solution is unworkable.

Your solution -- having this Wikipedia article tyrannized by a clique of long-established users who make up their own arbitrary and inconsistent rules -- is unworkable.

No it isn't. My solution - having this articles list books that can be verified to have been banned - is entirely workable, only as arbitrary as the article title and entirely consistent.--Cherry blossom tree 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

People can add commentaries to articles? Who? How many? Based on what?

I suggested adding very short objections, e.g., "this entry is disputed," including maybe a short statement of the reason and possibly followed by one or more links to external websites where the objection is discussed or debated. I cannot even think of a reason why Pandas should be excluded -- it meets the same basic criteria as the ALA-listed books on the Wikipedia list. Pandas should be on the Wikipedia list so long as it satisfies the same criteria as books currently on the list. Of course, if there are too many objections (like objections from the person wanting to exclude all books that have not been nationally banned), then something else would have to be done -- like adding a note saying that many books in the list have not been nationally banned (in fact, many have not been banned at all). Also, many of the book names are linked to Wikipedia articles about the books, where more detailed information may be found.

This would be a self reference, which we generally try to avoid (see WP:ASR) but on a more fundamental level it's just a bad idea. Why include items on a list that don't belong on the list with a note explaining why they don't belong? It just doesn't make sense.--Cherry blossom tree 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is life beyond the American Library Association - books have been banned in the rest of the world and before the ALA was founded which they do not document.

As I said, it would be difficult or impossible to determine whether some books have actually been banned, because undoubtedly some bans have not been reported to the ALA or another source. Larry Fafarman 23:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Books that are 'challenged' are even less well documented, but that is not important. This list makes no claim to be exhaustive, this is a straw man argument.--Cherry blossom tree 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Geni Removing Many Books

The opening line of this article is: "Many societies have banned certain books. This is a partial list of books which have been banned by some organization at some place and time." But User:Geni is removing books that have not been banned on a "national level." Can somebody please point me to the discussion on this? Are these books being moved to another page, with the title of this page being "List of banned books on a national level"? In the United States, books are rarely discussed as being banned on a national level because schoolboards and education is handled not only at a state level, but also municipal level. That means this list would be incredibly incomplete. Can somebody explain to me why this is being done? It certainly bears no relation to the "Challenged v. Banned" idea. --DavidShankBone 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Printing was inveted sometime around 649 AD and books and booklike documents have existed since well before that time. The USA has existed since 1776 and has rather less than an 18th of the worlds total population. I don't belive school level bannings are of much historical significance. The list does not include the complete Librorum Prohibitorum (the vactican has historicaly always managed to mentain de-facto teritoritoral independance). So I see no reason to concern ourselves with stuff as minor as being banned by the odd school distict.Geni 20:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you actually read the policy you cite. It explicitly says "Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions". The examples it gives of boldness are "fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise", and it makes a distinction between boldness and recklessness, the latter characterized by "large changes or deletions". Removing useful content is reckless. And what you personally think should concern "ourselves" is not relevant -- the content is for the entire readership of WP, not "ourselves", whoever that may be. -- Jibal 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By quoting selectively from a page you can make it say anything. For example, you quote "making large changes or deletions" when a fuller quotation of "large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, without carefully looking at your edit" would give an entirely different perspective on this. It also makes clear that "destruction" applies to blindly reverting changes rather than removing content that should not be present. --Cherry blossom tree 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Being Bold does not mean being reckless. You are being reckless. When you decide to institute a new policy on a page that is obvioulsy controvesial, but also has recently been protected (I alerted the semi-protector), then you are being reckless. This is something that you should have discussed before just slicing into an article. Supreme Court battles have been fought over here about school districts banning certain books; for you to casually dismiss the American education system as "I don't believe school level bannings are of much historical significance" speaks more to your lack of knowledge than anything else. I've reverted your edits until we can have consensus on this issue. --DavidShankBone 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know about your Supreme Court battles. I just don't see them as very relivant. To put it bluntly what was the body count? Of course the cases you talk about would be entirely relivant to an article on say free speach in the US. National level is a useful starting point in reduceing the cruft. Of course that doesn't entirly work since the Index Librorum Prohibitorum alone is over 4000 works but it does give a reasonable starting point.Geni 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

National level might be a workable starting point for other nations, but it simply does not work with regard to the United States, due to the way that our political system works. Simply put, there is no "national" mechanism that could result in that effect. It is really only possible for books to be banned at the local level, and it is only possible for them to be banned from certain venues. You, personally, may not think that school-district level efforts are particularly significant, but in the USA that's the primary venue used to keep certain books away from certain people. It's also worth noting that many of the books on the list were not challenged in a single school district, but have been targeted in many school districts. Harry Potter springs to mind as one example of this. Mdunford 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While attempts to remove these books from some school libraries is significant, the books haven't been banned in any real sense - people are still allowed to read them and can obtain them from other sources. The fact that books cannot be effectively banned in the USA does nto mean we should apply lower standards in order to have something to include. I suspect that an article looking at what books people look to exclude from American school libraries would be very interesting and worthwhile, but I don't think it is this one.--Cherry blossom tree 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"people are still allowed to read them" -- that's an obviously overly restrictive criterion that would imply that no book has ever been banned in the U.S. Just because there isn't a ban on reading a book doesn't mean that there isn't a ban on its distribution. Please stop indulging in legalisms and consider the point of the article, which is societal restrictions on the accessbility of various books for various reasons. This is an encyclopedia and it is intended to inform, and the placement of these books in this list, together with who banned them and why, is useful information to readers. -- Jibal 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an 'obviously overly restrictive criterion' - it's one derived logically from the title of the article. The point is that there isn't a ban on the distribution of these books. That one library chooses not to stock a book does not constitute a ban on its distribution outside that particular building. I've said it before, if you want an article on 'books challenged in American school libraries' then you're welcome to make it. But it isn't this one.--Cherry blossom tree 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you ignored my substantive argument and again indulged in legalisms. I also note that, back in June, you recognized that "the phenomena of young adult books being banned in many American high schools [...] merits a mention". I suggest that you revert your personality back to that earlier point in time. Bye bye. -- Jibal 22:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If I can correct your selective quoting once more, I actually stated "Ideally this list would be the former (a list of books that have been genuinely banned) and a more general article on book banning or censorship would cover the latter(books challenged in American school libraries)." My position has been entirely consistent.

I must assume that you consider "the point of this article" to have been your substantive argument. I think my previous comments on this page have made my position entirely clear - that the point of this article was to list books that have been banned. Just because information is useful does not mean it should be in this particular article. Or even in an encyclopaedia at all for that matter. --Cherry blossom tree 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing books from public schools, school libraries, or public libraries is government interference in what people can read. Historically, such attempts have been considered in the US as attempts to ban books. The American Library Association defines a "challenge" as, "an attempt to remove or restrict materials," and a "banning" as, "an attempt to remove or restrict materials." You might not like that definition, but it's the definition that the ALA has been using for over 20 years now, as far as I can tell.

There is good reason for the broader definition - adults may have other options for obtaining books, but children oftentimes do not. Removal of a book from a public or school library will effectively result in children being unable to obtain a copy, particularly in cases where the parents either oppose that work themselves, or simply don't care enough to help the child get a copy. You might consider that insignificant; I do not. Most importantly, the ALA and the other groups that have been running "Banned Books Week" since 1982 do not. Your criteria for including books on this page - and I do mean your, because as far as I can tell you have provided nothing beyond your own opinion to support the definition you used when you began editing the page - would result in a page that doesn't have most of the ALA's list of the most commonly banned books.

Finally, using "national level" as the criteria will result in a page that will, by definition, include only cases that have taken place in nations that have (or had) a "national level" mechanism for banning books. This will make it appear as if book banning is only a current problem in totalitarian nations. That is simply not the case - it's just that efforts to restrict access to books have to take place at lower levels of government in other nations. Mdunford 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) bg

we are not here to push the POV of the American Library Association. In a free market economy a refusal by a goverment to suppy something does not means it is banned. The US goverment might decide not to suppy say condoms. Would that mean they were banned?Geni 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are quoting the same definition for banning a book as challenging it is telling, since these are clearly two very different concepts. To ban something is to forbid it, even a successful challenge does not forbid the book, it just means that whichever library won't stock it. As I said in my last response, I do consider that challenging books in this manner is significant and that it should be in an article but since none of these books have actually been banned it shouldn't be this article.--Cherry blossom tree 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the fact that Mdunford obviously made a typing error is not "telling". If you would bother to read the page s/he cited, the definitions are, of course, different. -- Jibal 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for only refuting those arguments presented to me. The definitions on the page cited don't affect my argument at all, though. Books can be banned from a certain institution without being banned in any wider sense.--Cherry blossom tree 22:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument was presented in the citation. What you should be apologizing for is an unreasoned inference; for some reason I had no trouble noticing that Mdunford misreported the definition, but then I'm not ideologically wedded to some position. And the actual ALA definitions happen to blow your argument to smithereens. It was Mdunford's point that "the wider sense" isn't the only sense, or the most meaningful sense, of "banned". Odd that you recognized that in June, but don't now, and are lost in your legalisms rather than focused on encyclopedic work. -- Jibal 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument was presented on this page. Supporting evidence was in the citation. I assumed the two were consistent. The ALA definitions do not blow my argument to smithereens, please don't overstate your case. I have never disputed that preventing a library stocking a book is banning it from that library but not in a wider sense. If you wish to argue over which of those definitions is the most useful then you're welcome to do it. So far you have not. --Cherry blossom tree 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

there are ways to remove books from the national level. Sure the most obvious woud involve a constitutional amendement but it is theoreticaly posible.Geni 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A constitutional amendment just to ban books? I don't think so. Geni is obviously a troll. Don't feed the troll. Zotdragon 17:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

please WP:NPA. It is after all a constitutional amendment that makes it so difficult to legaly ban books in the US.Geni 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to inject some restraint and calm into this discussion and be the one to prevent what looks like to be an exciting and pointless edit war, but this article is already a hodge-podge of information that needs some serious editing. The basic problem is that this article should be divided into three separate articles:

1. Banned books - works that have been barred from being sold in stores or held in public libraries by some goverment agency, or in the more distant past, by a religious entity.

2. Censored books - works that are allowed to be sold and displayed, but have been bowdlerized or had content removed by editors either govermental or not.

3. Challenged books - the most common category for books to be removed from public and school libraries, usually by school boards or trustees of the public library. This category has a vague legal grayness because libraries can't be forced to carry every book ever printed (due to limited resources) nor should they. This category is also the most controversial because the books in question are usually aimed at children, the question being if the book will corrupt or enlighten a child.

I suggest breaking this already overly large article into the three above categories. It's certainly better than just deleting content. Zotdragon 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

books that have mearly been barred from being held in public libraries do not belong in the catigory of banned.Geni 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Allright, I'm out of this discussion, because I just don't care enough. I assume you all are doing what's best - I have my hand in too many other pots. --DavidShankBone 09:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Geni isn't even following his own logic. Books deleted included those by Zundel which were banned on a national level. He deleted animal farm too, which was cited. wtf? Geni is a troll.

Lolita

What happend to the book Lolita by Valdimir Nabokov being on this list. If I remeber correctly it has been banned because of it's content.207.155.98.215 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The list was more or less completly unsourced, and had filled up with junk. Some vlaid entrioes could have been deleted as well in that process. If you have a source for the banning, please add it back to the article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple of copies of Lolita, one of which is in a Penguin box set of 'banned boks' which claims that it was banned in France, Argentina and New Zealand for obscenity. I'll re-add it, but if anyone feels the source is a bit dodgy then they're welcome to remove it again. --Cherry blossom tree 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Giver

This is either not in the US, or not factual. The Giver is definatly not a banned book in NY, USA. It's a 6th grade assigned book, and one of my favourites to have read in school. If it is banned in other places in the US please specify where. syberwolff

According to the ALA, The Giver is one of the most frequently challenged books, especially in middle schools. [8] There was also a story about its problems with being frowned upon in USA Today. [9] So, yes, it is very factual. Maria 02:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nyet niether source provides any evidence that the book has been banned.Geni 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12]] Better? Maria 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. 2 cases of it being removed from classrooms. 0 cases of its ownership and/or sale being made illegal. Not banned.Geni 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's banned in the same way Huckleberry Finn was banned (i.e. from schools). DonQuixote 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

so not banned then.Geni 16:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Children of Sanchez

The article on Oscar Lewis' book mentions that it was banned in Mexico during much of the 1960s. I suspect many of the works which have a "citation needed" notice have references to their being banned in the articles on the books and authors.

Information needed on where, when and by whom

It is not enough to say things like 'banned in schools', 'banned in UK'. It does not give the reader any useful information. This page needs to give more detail on the type, scope and duration of the ban. Including which country or authority banned the book.

Nor should it be organised by country , that will just lead to repeated books and this will make it hard to navigate. Rather the countries or places where it was banned should be listed next to the book. Athosfolk 14:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost entries

When User:Tony360X converted the page to table format (in this diff), The Well of Loneliness was left out. It was well-sourced and is as unambiguous a case of book-banning as you could ask for, so I can't see why it would have been omitted except by mistake. I don't have time to go through all the entries on the old list right now, but it would be a good idea to reconcile them and make sure nothing else was left out. —Celithemis 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson

I would like to draw a large distinction between the act of banning a book and the cancellation of a vanity project by a self-confirmed anti-Simpson book publisher. Judith Regan's book was not banned for political reasons (in fact she is well-connected to the political establishment in the U.S.), like many of the books on the list, but instead canceled because the publisher realized it would be an embarrassment to release it. I suppose one could make a case for prior restraint, or something, but I think the government needs to be involved for that legal term to rear its head. No, this book was going to contribute nothing to American Literature, and was obviously a cash-in of the lowest kind. Adding it to the list of Banned Books is a serious overstatement of its importance, and I highly suggest it be removed.

There are countless numbers of books that are written and not published for various reasons every year. Does every single one of those books belong on this list too? I can't believe "If I Did It" has stayed on this page for as long as it has. 65.96.178.66 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)mmoskwa

I agree -- withdrawal, even under public pressure, is not banning. I've removed it. —Celithemis 09:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist Cookbook

"Banned outside the US"? Everywhere? I don't think that's possibleA Geek Tragedy 13:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this book has been published everywhere - let alone banned. Waffle247 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this and was reverted. "Banned outside the US" is a ludicrous (and uncited) claim, and if anyone over the age of 21 can buy it then it is not banned at all. --Cherry blossom tree 12:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I dont know about the legal status of the book in the US and the rest of the world (at least here it isn´t, but is sold only in English, I haven´t see a Spanish translation) but what I can say if that is the book it´s in the main text it doesnt have sense that it isn´t in the list. The info I used to write the description of the banning I took direcly from wikipedia--ometzit<col> 14:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

USSR???

i have a feeling the USSR cant have banned books (like Doctor Zhivago )

i mean doesnt the USSR not exist anymore???

05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a list of books that are banned now, but of books that have been banned at some point. --Cherry blossom tree 09:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

A long time ago Jo said in her website that Harry Potter books have been banned (again) by some weird catholic-left wing-low IQ society or something like that. But she doesnt say exactly wich books are banned, so should we add all of them or just say Harry Potter books, banned and burned by several conservative people bla bla bla...?--ometzit<col> 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did she name the specific society, and are they notable? –Pomte 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, this is what she said:

“ BANNED BOOKS WEEK (29/09/06): Once again, the Harry Potter books feature on this year list of most-banned books. As this puts me in the company of Harper Lee, Mark Twain, J. D. Salinger, William Golding, John Steinbeck and others writers I revere, I have always taken my annual inclusion on the list as a great honour. "Every burned book enlightens the world." - Ralph Waldo Emerson ”

Since there are no comments, I´m adding it again--ometzit<col> 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the Pope's statements registering no objection to harry potter books it would seem unlikely that at catholic group would attempt to have them banned

The Wealth of Nations banned in Communist countries?

From the current text of this entry:

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith: "Banned in communist nations for its capitalist content."

What evidence is there for this? I would find this odd since Karl Marx based much of his writing on Smith's work, and Lenin considered Adam Smith one of the progenitors of socialism. I should think that The Wealth of Nations would be required reading for any good Communist.

Either evidence of this needs be to be produces, or this statment needs to be removed from the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.240.227.45 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Karl Marx did indeed base a lot of his theory on the work of Smith. However Marx's work was also regularly banned in communist countries so I do not find it at all hard to believe A. Smith was also banned. I'll try to dig up a source for it though. Jvbishop 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an easily accessible source for books taht were banned the the Soviet Union? i've been trying to find lists and such for the purpose of verifying the Adam Smith bit and have so far only come across a single sample page of the list bearing a dozen author names ( http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/i2list.html ). If anyone can help me with this it would be appreciated. Jvbishop 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeper's Diary

This is opening up a whole can of worms regarding the definition of "Banned" but the book is not really banned. The publication of it would be in violation of confidentiality agreements and the author would have to forfeit all money made from its publication. I don't know if this is a ban. Opinions? Jvbishop 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Banned in the US?"

Admittedly, I have little knowledge of censorship laws outside the United States, but I do know that the US government cannot "ban" books. While the phrase "banned in the US" does not carry any inherent meaning of government censorship, it might sound that way to the uninitiated. Perhaps more specific terms should be used when dealing with books in the United States (and countries with similar anti-censorship laws)? For instance, Adventures of Huckleberry Fin is currently described as "Banned in the US;" more accurately, however, it has been banned in certain US schools and libraries. I'd make these edits myself, but I'm not certain that this hasn't already been discussed before and a consensus reached on how to treat this issue (I haven't read this entire talk page, but I didn't notice anything that sounded similar to this problem in the ToC). Jeff Silvers 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, this doesn't seem to be a constant problem throughout the article. I'll edit the Finn item myself. Jeff Silvers 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are of course certain exception such as obscenity (or claimed obscenity) in which the US can and has banned books. I think that we need to establish a coherent definition of banning before doing too much to this page. Else we get into large arguments over whether or not something should be included. For example User:Geni deleted a bunch of entries that had been listed as banned from certain school libraries or curricula arguing that this was not in fact a ban. We need to sort this out before getting too much into reverting back and forth. I'm thinking of working on the intro first to clarify all of this. Jvbishop 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

generaly I would define banned as a situation where The man on the Clapham omnibus would not be able to legaly obtian a copy of the book. Obviously there are still cases where this doesn't work (such as when he legaly could but there are very high barriers in place that would prevent him from doing so such as first haveing to submit a highly detailed aplication to the goverment or the like).Geni 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently banned vs previously banned

I think the article should differ Currently banned from previously banned. Some books that has been banned before, and now banned now. -- Frap 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Help Me!

Could someone link Si, Somos Lesbianas into the "S" section I could not figure out how to add this banned novel Cr8tiv 5:00 June 9 2007

Cleanup

I removed a handful of out of place entries. Many of these were books that were challenged or hindered, but never banned. One was actually not a book at all. Brianga 10:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)