Talk:List of books banned by governments

Fannie Hill

Comments that this was the last book to be banned in the US is incorrect. Are we forgitting they just bought up all copies of a service mans book. Comment should be removed its not correct.--Sattmaster (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2010 (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

It is NOT banned in France neither in Netherlands per-se stop pulling info out of your ass, it's has already have been compiled here, explain to me how reading some deranged dude biography and ideas constitute a Holocaust denial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.46.108 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2010 (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)

I don't believe this book is banned at all. It is being sold here on Amazon [1] Smitty (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is still banned in Australia, decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), see this old submission slash.dotat.org/~newton/senate/ [[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here it is: http://www.oflc.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/d853f429dd038ae1ca25759b0003557c/bfedb7186337f6ceca257671007a3c63!OpenDocument [[3]]. "RC" is "Refused Classification", which means "banned" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (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)

Totally agree. What was banned in the 17th century vs. what is banned now are two totally different things. We should add columns Banned date, Release date and Still banned. Hreinn (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. good idea with the extra column for dates! --Tcheh (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of banned book

Unresolved

 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Two issues related to the definition of banned book keep coming up, and I think that they should be addressed directly. The first issue is the definition of banned book. My view is that any prohibition on any scale, whether it's a national government criminalizing literature or a library prohibiting food and drinks, meets the plain English definition of ban, and that any book prohibited anywhere for any reason meets the plain English definition of banned book. My position is backed up by this 2003 globe and mail article, this CNN article and the ban page on dictionary.reference.com. The second issue is the potential complications of using a broad definition of banned book. IMO this issue could probably be addressed by removing books with non-notable bans from the list and including more information on individual bannings (perhaps by adding a "type of ban" or "nature of ban" column, perhaps by organizing the article into separate sections based on the severity of the ban, such as "criminally banned books"), if the article still becomes cluttered, it could be split or moved to a more specific title such as "list of criminally prohibited books" or "list of nationally banned books". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying here and this has been my main objection to the article in practice, if not in theory. The extremely narrow definition as it is currently being practiced in this article seems to be based more on personal or political opinion than on reliable third-party sources. On the other hand, there are plenty of reliable sources describing books which have been banned at the local or library level although some insist on referring to these books as "challenged" as a way to differentiate them from being described as "banned". Again, no reliable sources have been shown for this distinction. The simple fact is that we need to either narrow the title of this article or broaden the standard for inclusion. We can't continue to call it a "List of banned books" when in fact only the most extreme examples of book banning are included and many reliably sourced examples are omitted. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of what you said but I'm not really interested in continuing what seems like an endless argument. (This is partly based on what I wrote on User:Loonymonkey's talk page a few days ago.) My main concern is that removing books from a school library is a different situation to banning them from publication (does anyone disagree with this?) therefore putting the two next to each other on one list is misleading. One of your suggestions (and one that I have made previously) is that this article could be split into two, with titles like "Books challenged in school libraries" and "Books banned at a national level". This would satisfy me because it would keep the two different things apart. It would seem to satisfy you because it would leave no room for dispute over which books should go into which list. Is there anyone who would object to something like this? --Cherry blossom tree 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cherry blossom tree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From just yesterday we see people understand the distinction: "While still a form of censorship, 'challenges' differ slightly from 'bans' since they suggest that certain material be removed only from specific locations, not barred from the entire community. From "Book-Banning Advocacy Finds New Home on Facebook," by Meriwether Clarke, North by Northwestern, 23 October 2008. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you're scouring the internet for any sources which support your opinion, but I don't know if I would call a website published by students the most reliable source (or any sort of authority on this subject). In fact, it's certainly possible that the author of that essay consulted the "expertise" of Wikipedia when writing their story. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not scouring. Just ran across it. I feel sorry for you that you feel the continued need to address me personally instead of the issues, particularly in light of recent efforts to get things here back on track. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about notable sub-national bans by non-school entities, such as Quebec's 1937 "Padlock Law", where would they go? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. It would depend on how we define the lists. It might be difficult to list that on any list of books since it doesn't refer to any particular book, so much as a category of books. However you define the selection criteria there will always be controversial cases. This system would seem to have far less of them than the current one, but suggestions to reduce them further would be appreciated. --Cherry blossom tree 09:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"List of criminally banned books" and "list of non-criminally banned books" could cover everything, but I'd prefer to keep list of banned books as the general article. We could organize this article into headings such as "illegal books", "books banned by religious authorities", "books banned by public schools and libraries" and "other banned books", which would make it fairly easy to split off one of the categories if it gets too large. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as it follows standard Summary Style. The idea is to start with general parent article and "bud off" daughter articles as the parent article grows too large (this article is not in any danger of growing too large any time soon, though.) Frankly I don't see the objection to organizing these together as long as the nature of the censorship is clearly explained. Yes, there are vast degrees of magnitude and book burnings by a military dictatorship are far worse than bannings from a library by the morally outraged. But what does that have to do with the structure of this article? Saying that the one "cheapens" the other is simply an emotional point and isn't really a valid argument for excluding books from the list. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no strong objection to presenting two lists on one page, though I think two separate pages would be clearer. My ideal solution for a general article would be a proper article rather than a list - we currently have almost no prose on the subject. Just to clarify, User:Loonymonkey, my objection to putting the two together is that someone in charge of a school library deciding that it won't carry a particular book is not the same thing as a government deciding that no-one can own or read that book. This is not an emotional point - separating these two makes for a better, more understandable encyclopaedia. Personally, I am not happy about using the word 'ban' in reference to the former but I'm prepared to overlook it in the interest of finding a mutually acceptable solution to the issue. --Cherry blossom tree 23:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is talking about librarians deciding that they won't carry a book, that's not even an issue. The issue is books being removed from libraries by outside forces. There are plenty of examples where books have been removed either by government forces (albeit local rather than national government, although why the distinction matters has never been made clear) or by pressure from non-governmental special interest groups. Currently, any attempt to add these books to the list is unilaterally reverted with some sort of pronouncement that it is "not banned at the national level." --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"The issue is books being removed from libraries by outside forces." Perhaps Loonymonkey meant to say something else? Books are rarely, if ever, "removed from libraries by outside forces." In libraries, they are usually removed by a duly appointed library board acting in accordance with the law. In schools, they are usually removed by people duly appointed or elected to act in such a capacity, again in accordance with the law. In countries, books are banned by the government, and it may not be in accordance with the law, but saying it's by "outside forces" is likely not what was meant. Sometimes individuals remove books illegally, as in theft, but I would not think of that as "outside forces," and it is theft, not book banning. Would Loonymonkey care to clarify? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, when I said "someone in charge of a school library" I meant literally "someone in charge of a school library" rather than specifically "librarians". I am not going to carry on this argument since it is not bringing us any closer to a solution. --Cherry blossom tree 10:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Got any non US sources? Chambers concise goes for forbid or prohibit which only governments have the legal power to do.Geni 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please rephrase that? It may just be me but I don't understand it. I think you are saying you have a non-US source that defines banning as forbidding or prohibiting access to materials, and that only government have the legal power to do that. If so, could you give more of the citation? Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chambers concise describes banning as forbidding or prohibiting. Legally only the governments have the power to enforce that.Geni 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban: "noun - an official order stating that something is not allowed • a ban on advertising. verb (banned, banning) - 1 to forbid something. 2 to forbid someone from going somewhere or doing something, especially officially or formally • banned him from the club • ban you from driving. ETYMOLOGY: Anglo-Saxon bannan in the original verb sense 'to summon'; 13c as noun in obsolete sense 'a summons or proclamation'." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And the only people who can disallow the reading of a book are goverments.Geni 17:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that "legally only the governments have the power to enforce that" is incorrect. For example a book retail chain could prohibit a specific book from being carried at its' stores and legally enforce the ban, or an organization could ban certain conduct among its' members and enforce the ban by revoking membership. Also, being illegal to enforce isn't the same as being impossible to enforce. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Geni is correct. I provide a reliable source below. Look for the paragraph where I specify Geni has been proven correct. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) From "Banned Books 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D.," by Haight and Grannis, 4th Ed., Appendix 1, page 114-115, a source already used on the main page:

School Textbooks and School Libraries

The question of the censorship of textbooks used in the public schools in recent years has not been so much one of banning as of rejection or disapproval of certain text as a result of pressure by local or national groups.

I read that to mean books "banned" in public schools are not banned, and that this opinion comes from a reliable source. I read that to mean claims that books challenged or removed in schools are banned is a point of view not supported by reliable sources. Further, this is a source that made a study of the subject, not a news reporter that talked to some library association's spokesperson before making claims of banned books in public schools in accordance with the library association's point of view. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In the same source is the article entitled, "Censorship in America: The Legal Picture," by Charles Rembar. On page xi is this opening paragraph:

One of the interesting aspects of this volume, Banned Books, is that none of the books it names is banned. That is, at present, in the United States. And under the current state of the law none could be. I use the word "banned" in its ordinary sense: suppressed, suppressed by government.

I read this to mean there are now no banned books in the USA and that there cannot be legally. Further, I read this to mean banned means suppressed by a government. Let's look further, page xii:

We still have conflict about the acceptability of books in libraries, school and public. Typically, it arises when trustees or school boards seek to expel a book that the librarians would keep. This is significant conflict, but it is far from total suppression that banning by law imposes. The book remains available everywhere except on the particular shelves.

That confirms other sources I have provided (like by Jessamyn West). He goes on to say:

Except where irrational or badly motivated decisions are made, it can be argued, on behalf of the boards, that what we have here is not a question of censorship but a question of selection, that choices must be made as to how their meager funds should be used, and that it is undemocratic to lodge the power of decision in bureaucratic employees (librarians) rather than in representatives elected by communities.

I see that as saying not only are the books not banned, but they are not even censored. He's not done--same page:

But despite our continuing proper concern with other First Amendment problems, there is no longer banning of books in the ordinary sense of those words, indeed the only sense in which the words were understood when the first edition of Banned Books was published.

I see that as saying First Amendment concerns are misplaced in that books are no longer banned in the USA. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the First Amendment, Charles Rembar continues:

There are too many people, on both sides, who fail or refuse to understand the nature of the First Amendment. The danger from the authoritarians who would control expression is sufficiently familiar. What is less obvious is the danger from authoritarians who wave the banner of freedom. Their efforts would turn the free-speech guarantee into a garbage van, which is made to carry such things as topless-bottomless bars and advertising by lawyers (two things not so very different). The courts, as much the slaves of fashion as the rest of us, meekly go along. Where once they held the First Amendment in much too narrow a compass, now, having overlearned their lesson, they bloat it unhealthily.

This sounds to me to be similar to this:

The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry "Censorship!" the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others. By Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant, former communications director for Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign.

And now, again from Rembar, it appears Geni was correct, page xv, banning of books occurs when:

Congress, or a state legislature, or a municipal government, must first enact a statute or an ordinance declaring certain defined expression illegal.

Finally, tying things up, Rembar says, page xxv:

Moving from the conceptual to the empirical, the plain fact is that there has been no suppression of books since the 1973 decisions—no ban, no successful prosecution. Hence the statement at the outset of this introduction.

"Plain fact." This from Charles Rembar. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sources seem to have established the definition of banned book as scholarly jargon, however I also believe that my journalistic sources have established that it has a different, broader meaning in common English, so if we are going to use the narrower definition, I feel that Wikipedia:Explain jargon should apply, however I would prefer to use the broader definition or use a less ambigious term in the article name. By the way, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum article uses the broader definition of banned book. Also, if "banned book" only refers to books prohibited by governments, what term should we use to refer a book prohibiton enforced by a non-government organization, such as a faction in a civil war, or a militant group? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a scholar. He's not using "jargon." I finally present a significant reliable source who has made a study of the topic and it's called "jargon." Honestly, I'm shocked to see how glibly the scholar is written off for his supposed use of jargon. There's only the slightest concession that the scholar has any relevance at all. Instead, "journalistic sources" are praised.

The "journalistic sources" are not scholars and instead use the terminology of the people they consult for information, usually members of the American Library Association who benefit by falsely claiming books are banned when they are not. Indeed the media benefits as well as "banned" books make for great reading while book "selection" is a yawner.

Listen, the "journalists" get a story, call the people involved, call the ALA, then write a story and move on. They are not experts. They are usually using "jargon," the very jargon they get from the ALA if that's who they called.

The scholar was not using jargon--indeed he went out of his way to explain several times what he was saying just to avoid any question as to his message. He clearly said and reiterated that book banning in the USA stopped long ago and is nearly impossible now.

"A different, broader meaning in common English" is opinion unsupported by scholarly research, though supported by media reports based in part on interviews with ALA members who have an "Office for Intellectual Freedom" whose purpose is in part to guide people to think like them.

This is an encyclopedia, not an reflection of jargon in newspaper stories about book "bannings" supposedly occurring daily in the USA. Yes, media reports are reporting bannings are occurring daily in the USA, but that is simply not true according to scholarly research and according to plain fact. This is Wikipedia, not the "Office of Intellectual Freedom."--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is your position supported by scholarly research into the English language? Neither of us has been able to cite a published source from an expert in the field of linguistics and neither of us have been able to refute eachothers' claims about the definition of banned book. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, a scholar on banned books is not sufficient—rather a scholar on linguistics is needed. So the banned books scholar would not know the meaning of banned books but a linguistics professor would. I disagree. That's too far a stretch to say a banned books scholar is not as reliable as a linguistics scholar to define banned books. That argument is invalid. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that an English-speaking scholar in a specific field is likely to know what a term means to scholars in the same field, and is likely to know what that term means to other people in the same region, but would not necessarily know what the term means to people in other regions, scholars in other fields or members of other professions unless the scholar's field of study happens to be the English language. I'm saying that someone who studies the English language in general is more likely to know what a word means to people throughout the English-speaking world than someone who studies law, legal history, government censorship or literary history. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This issue never really seemed to be resolved, so I thought it would be useful to get some outside opinions, which is why I put it on RfC. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the RFC template. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It confused me. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a qualitative difference between legislation criminalizing the publication/sale/possession of a book, action by a library to remove a book from circulation, and a religious edict forbidding adherents from reading a book. For better or worse, however, the word "ban" is commonly applied to any of these actions. The library actions are (sadly, IMHO) far too numerous to be listed individually, so those are best covered by List of most commonly-challenged books in the United States. Both religious and civil bans could reasonably be covered here, as long as the authority in question is identified, and the article explains what sense of "ban" it is documenting. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the article was renamed from list of banned books to list of books banned by governments by Lookmonkey back in January. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Two lists

No-one seems to have explicitly objected to the idea of somehow operating two lists as a way to avoid the disagreement. Does anyone have any problem with attempting to move forward with some form of this plan? --Cherry blossom tree 09:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This seemed to have been agreed to by everyone (but the discussion just kept going!). As a first step, i think splitting into 2 lists on this page would be great. As a non-american, i really don't care that a local school library "banned" Harry Potter, whereas legally sanctioned national bans are of great interest. Split the lists, please!

Both on this page is ok, although 2 pages would be better. featured lists now have to have compete lead sections that explain the background and inclusion crtieria of the list, so 2 lists: "List of books banned by nation" and "List of book banned or challenged by US local authorities" (or similar meaning titles) would present no confusion, and if linked well would not delay anyone finding which they want.Yobmod (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have achieved consensus on this, but then nothing happened (probably the advent of the holidays!) I'm hoping to get this moving again, with the first order of agreed-upon business being renaming this article (to clarify scope, make it clear that it is a sister, not a parent, of List of most commonly-challenged books in the United States and, unlike that article, is international in scope. Of all the suggestions that have been given above, it seems that "List of books banned at the national level" is the most succinct. Does anyone have any final objections or comments on the name change? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why "at the national level"? Because of the U.S.'s semifederal structure, which delegates a lot of authority to state and local governments, legislative bans there most commonly occur at the subnational level. Most of the discussion above was aimed at distinguishing between a "ban" (i.e. it is illegal to buy, sell, and/or possess it) and a successful "challenge" (i.e. a library or school may not circulate it). A ban by the state of Georgia is no less notable a ban than one by the nation of Georgia.

There's also a third kind of restriction on books, which hasn't been addressed much here: a book forbidden to its members by a religious institution. I'd go with List of books banned by governments, List of books forbidden by religious bodies, and List of most commonly-challenged books in the United States. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. As far as this article is concerned, tweaking the name is the best (and most resolvable) course of action, as attempts to expand or clarify the scope of this article have been at an impasse for some time. There is a history of edit-warring, some strong opinions on opposing sides and a few ownership issues that prevent any consensus for an overhaul of the article itself. I have no objections to your proposed title "List of books banned by Governments" and it sounds a little less clumsy than "banned at the national level." Why don't we make the change to the title and then if you have time, maybe ou can start the other list, "forbidden by religious bodies" (although you might want to say "forbidden or challenged" ). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Forbidden or challenged" would combine two different actions. A preacher telling her followers not to read a book is a different scenario from a preacher telling people not of her flock they may not read it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. In any case, let's move forward with the name change to this article as consensus on that was reached some time ago. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as you can see, I've gone ahead and made the page move. This should make things considerably more clear for readers and editors new to the article. Feel free to start the other article (I don't have tons of time at the moment. Drop me a line on my talk page if you do so and I'll watchlist it. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a year late to this discussions, but I think it was a poor decision. A better choice would have been to add sortable columns defining what kind of ban it is. Thus the reader is free to sort the list any way they want, on the fly. Now we have an arbitrary and stagnant list. There should be multiple columns which are sortable:

Book title | Book year | Author | Country | Date of ban | Ban type | Notes

I think the current "type of literature" column could be removed to make room for these more critical fields, or kept, but standardized so it is sortable.

Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gulliver's travels

I read that this book was banned in Ireland. I even have a source: http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/ . could somebody add that? I tried, but I can't get the boxes to work. thank you. Solar Flute (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a broken link. I don't think it should be added. Mlkrueger (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

alleged

Seems to be fairly random if a book is show as banned for ~alleged~. For example, "sexual references", or "alleged sexual references". I just noticed "The Satanic Verses", where it is clearly POV, but then I realized it was a more general problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Currency...

The wording here, and they wat things are presented. Somethings are worded as if the books are currently banned, but they are not anymore. What is a good way to fix this? MoodFreak (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to be currently banned to be listed here. Many listed books were banned by nations which no longer even exist (such as the Soviet Union). --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have information about the lifting of a ban, you can add that information to a book's entry, preferably with a citation. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned Books, Facts on File 4-volume encyclopedia

I just added reference to the 4-volume encyclopedia Banned Books which does a good job of organization. Published in 2006 it is the premier Encyclopedic reference on banned books. Wikipedia's list of banned books is poorly organized and could be improved using this reference work as a model and reliable source. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Three more books?

Weren't The Catcher in the Rye (for sexuality and rebellion), A Clockwork Orange (for disturbing images and the idea of not having freewill), and Fahrenheit 451 (for challenging the right to ban books) banned by certain governments? Xhaoz ^{Talk • Contribs} 03:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Censorship in New Zealand.

Both of the books that are supposedly banned in New Zealand on this list are no longer so. Borstal Boy and Lolita were once banned but are now free to read. Borstal Boy was uncensored when the Indecent Publications Act came into effect and Lolita was resubmitted to the Indecent Publications Tribunal in 1964 and allowed to be published. I have an email from the Office of Film and Literature Classification explaining this. If we were to update this page, would I need to use that email as a reference? Sax0nNZ (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I edited. If you don't like it then sue me. --Sax0nNZ (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard's Books Banned in Russia

Banned in Russia as "extremist" http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/scientology-writings-banned-as-extremist/404475.html --98.226.9.223 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of patents and textbooks have been banned... but the U.S. calls them "classified"

There are thousands of patents that are "classified" in the name of national security. Textbooks detailing the production of obviously potentially dangerous things like fissionable energy sources, as less obvious things, like a recent "war memoir", have been "classified". Sure, he'll delete a lot of stuff, and publish anyway. But those deleted passages are, in effect "banned", and will never be read in the U.S.

Documents, patents, diaries, memoirs and textbooks which often pose no national security risk other than to embarrass a former political figure are routinely called "classified" and put under wraps for 20-50 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10books.html
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/Kennedy+Library+Opens+Previously+Classified+Material.htm
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18691-uk-keeps-three-times-as-many-patents-secret-as-the-us.html

Without listing them here, this page is quite biased ... as if the U.S. doesn't ban things, which, of course it does regularly. Simul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

God of Small Things was not banned

Arundhati Roy's 1996 book The God of Small Things was never banned by the Indian government, nor by any State-level government in India. An obscenity case, was filed against her, and was later found to be wanting, and thus dismissed. See: the SAWNet website sol (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because no one's raised an objection, I'm going ahead and removing A. Roy's book from the list. --sol (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible good additions

There are possible good additions in what I removed here when I reverted an IP addy's first 2 edits ever that, as my history comment indicates, suffered from serious, multiple problems. That said, some of the books added and the refs provided might be okay and should be reviewed for adding back to the Wiki page. It's just that when someone is so off on so many policies, it makes it hard to trust the value of the additions made. The POV just drips from his addition. So I point this out and suggest people look at the individual titles he added to see if they are okay and reliably sourced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Huckleberry Finn

The book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is not on the list, while even though on its page there are reports of its censorship. Captain Gamma (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (2006)

According to the author the book is not banned (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2011/01/bayes_in_china_1.html) so I went ahead and removed that entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.7.23 (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

why is this list (and so many others on wikipedia) in alphabetical order?

Would it not make sense in having it arranged with respective countries like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films

It's a serious question, how often do people come to a long list and think "ok, now I'm going to start looking for banned books starting on the letter.... hm... d!"

I if know the title I'm looking for already - then I'll just go directly to that one! I would not want to go through this long list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.88.86 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

very interesting

This is an interesting topic and I was looking for list of books banned in US, UK or Ireland out of curiosity with their description (which I found on various websites). I think this page could be greatly improved if there were links in the intro to pages with much smaller list of books per countries (not all countries, just UK, US, Iran, 3rd riech and the vatican say, some of which already exist). plus one-line summaries would be really good. --Squidonius (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

| Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego (The Polish-English-German Glossary of the Regional Terminology of the Opole Voivodeship)

The book wasn't banned because of its content, it was withdrawn from sale because it claimed endorsement of the self-government of the Opole Voivodeship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.34.42 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alice's adventures in Wonderland

I think this should be removed due to the absence of any reliable source. With so much crap on the internet, it's fairly difficult to find an origin for the claim, however the earliest reference appears to be in Haight's 1978 "Banned books, 387 B. C. to 1978 A. D." (I don't own a copy, so perhaps someone could verify this?). Unless anyone can find an earlier more reliable source, the entry should be removed, as it is quite clearly a ridiculous fabrication- why Alice in particular? There must be thousands of books which portray anthropomorphised animals.Neodymium60 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to a lack of reply, I'm going to go ahead and delete the entry. Feel free to restore it if you can find any reliable source for its existence in fact. -Neodymium60 (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was first reported by The New York Times in 1931. If you have access to the NYT pay content, the article is available online ([4]). Since NYT is regarded for the purposes of WP:V as a reliable source, I added the entry back with some additional info from the NYT article.. --Muchness (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to Banned Book List

I meant to put this in the discussion page before I made changes, but I seem to have forgotten! I did some research and found sources about the banning of Black Beauty, The Jungle, Catch-22, Moll Flanders, The Decameron, The Canterbury Tales, Frankenstein, and Lysistrata. If there are any concerns about these additions, please feel free to let me know and I shall address them.

Also, though this Wikipedia page is focused on books banned by governments, should there also be the inclusion of bans done in collective public school systems, which, though not technically government, are held by standard curriculums and provincial/federal standards? This could open up the list to be more substancial, since many books were considered controversial and banned in parts. However, perhaps there is already a Wikipedia page dedicated to such books?

Sandréna (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about allowing books banned in schools - that seems so huge that it probably deserves it's own page! I think there's lots to work with that's focused on government bans. It looks like there was a lot of discussion a while back about what should be covered under 'banned books' and while it wasn't fully resolved I think generally people wanted to focus on government level bans. I could be wrong though! ÉtoileDeMer (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

However, this is the only page about banned books that links from the larger article about censorship. If you click on the "banned books" link it takes you here, so there is definite room for either broadening the scope of this article, or adding a new article entirely that's about challenged books in schools and public libraries. Probably out of our scope for this project. So if we're just working with books banned by governments, I guess it makes sense to work within what we have here and simply add a bunch of Canadian content to the list? Or if we want to get feisty, maybe we can add a Most Banned Books list at the top? Dabrowskia (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

just to add to my note, there IS a WP article called 'list of most commonly challenged books'. but it's U.S. only.Dabrowskia (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I've made some additions to the list; some new books, and for some existing ones (such as Lolita and Mein Kampf) added info about bans in Canada. Dabrowskia (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the on addition that was about Chapters-Indigo banning, since i think that is a little too small scale for this - however, I love your idea about added the most banned books section! Sandréna (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Country Specific Content and Organization

I can't speak to other countries, but I can say that at the moment this list seems seriously lacking in Canadian content. I have a few examples, which I would like to add (with citations of course!). However, before doing that I have some structural ideas...

This has been touched on by others above, but having everything in one large list makes for more difficult reading. I was thinking that maybe each country could have a section and a list for that specific country? With a column for the type of ban? And maybe each country section could have a little blurb about the types of government bans in that country - as 'government' is pretty general and can include bans on the local level or country-wide level and everything in between. Any thoughts on any of this? I'd be willing to experiment and lead by example with getting a Canada section started so everyone can see what I mean. ÉtoileDeMer (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My only concern about grouping by country is that this page is about the books, so if someone were to be using it as a reference, they would be looking for a book title, which is easier to find in alphabetical order. Also, if it has been banned in multiple countries, then it will appear more than once, and again, someone may not read long enough to find that information. As a page focused on the books, I think this layout, for now, is optimal. However, maybe have another list going by country, then linking each book to its location in the larger chart for its information? Sandréna (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hii, I'm so glad you joined this topic! What I was thinking of doing is adding more to the header, defining more clearly the current state of book banning. At least in Canada and the U.S., there aren't that many books (that I could find) that are currently banned, however there's an ongoing battle at public libraries and public schools about books that are being challenged. So I was thinking doing a bit about that.

I agree, the list is definitely confusing. It would be great to organize by country, and then within country, organize chronologically, so that it's easy to see that some of the books on this list WERE banned from say 1946-1952, but they aren't any more, etc. It could also be interesting to add in a section on most banned and commonly challenged books. Dabrowskia (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea of adding the most banned and commonly challenged books - I think that is a very interesting topic of banning, so let's do that! With making the page organized by country, I still think there should be an alphabetical list by book too - maybe make it the more condensed list that links to its spot in its country section? Sandréna (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I think I've confused myself now! OK, Sandréna, good points re: alphabetical order and linking. I haven't the foggiest idea how to do that but will take a look and see if I can figure that out. If not, I may just work with the main list as is.

Dabrowskia, love the idea of a section on commonly challenged books. There is a US page dedicated to that already, but maybe a short blurb and a link to the other page is in order? The other page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_United_States ÉtoileDeMer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

OK! Have added a wee section on Canada with a list that links to the relevant sections in the main list for more complete information on the titles. It's not pretty, but it works. Feel free to add any Canadian specific info and make it prettier if you have ideas on how to do that! ÉtoileDeMer (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)