|WikiProject Human rights||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Baring from work from Felony
- 2 Varia
- 3 Confusing statement on government internet blacklists
- 4 Duplicate paragraph
- 5 Principles. Appeals. Unfair or false blacklisting.
- 6 GladList/Sadlist
- 7 Medical Context
- 8 Prop 8 boycott
- 9 covert bullying
- 10 "Screenwriting" section
- 11 "History" section
- 12 CLAC Blacklist
- 13 Would You kindly put wikipedia blacklists somewhere so we can read them
- 14 Sideway link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charivari
- 15 Wikipedia Blacklisting
- 16 South africa
- 17 Hypoglycemic episode?
- 18 Reference
Baring from work from Felony
in the united states several tens of millions of peoples have commit-ed felonies at some point in there past and are now being barred from work. this has artificially kept the unemployment rate substantially higher. people who committed a felony in the past are on a black list and need not apply to any job for they will not get higherd ever no mater how many times they re-apply or how many jobs they apply to for in the united states if you have committed a felony you have no way of getting employment. this drastically lowers the tax base and has led to urban decay in many urban centers in the north like Detroit ,Cleveland and many others. you have all these people with no way of getting there earned income credits. The felony list is in fact black list it should be mentioned. its preventing 10 million or so people in the US from working. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, new user so bear with me here.... just wondering if there was any particular reason this page has an external link to http://totalsolutions.r.googlepages.com/home - it seems to be a homepage hawking cracked software for Symbian-based mobile phones. I don't fancy removing it myself since I'm new here, but maybe an editor could do something if it's an inappropriate link? Cheers.... Tomfin (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the following: Another, cruder synonym for blacklisting is blackballing (which implies that the one blacklisted has been metaphorically "castrated" by the blacklist).
- Blackballing has nothing to do with castration, it has to do with voters placing white or black balls into an urn as to whether a person should be voted in to (or out of) an organization. -- Zoe
- I deleted the whole paragraph about blackballing. Blackballing is a sanction by an individual against another individual and has nothing to do with lists, black or otherwise, nor with sanctions of groups (such as communists) or by groups (such as the motion picture industry). Also, I believe I’m right in saying that one can only be blackballed from a club, which is nowhere near as severe as being deprived of one’s livelihood by a blacklist. Paul Magnussen 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Confusing statement on government internet blacklists
The following statement needs to be rewritten to make it more clear and to better conform to NPOV:
- The assertion that the government or certain corporations are interpreting the term mail client to encompass disenfranchised human senders of messages on the Internet, and have automated black- or greylisting techniques to deny Internet access to such persons, is a sheer fabrication.
What is the claim being made? Is their evidence presented to support this claim? If not we can mention this but we should labeling it a "sheer fabrication" unless intentional deceit can be supported. --Cab88 19:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I deleted this paragraph from the Computing section as it's a duplicate from the previous section
- Many progressive technologists are now using the term "blocklists" instead of "blacklists" since "blacklist" can be offensive to African Americans. The British Sociological Association's website explains: "The term has taken on more political connotations with the rise of black activism in the USA since the 1960s and now its usage implies solidarity against racism. The idea of 'black' has thus been reclaimed as a source of pride and identity. To accept this means that we should be sensitive to the many negative connotations relating to the word 'black' in the English language (black leg, black list etc.)."
Principles. Appeals. Unfair or false blacklisting.
Around the Internet forums, listserv forums contributors, participants can unfairly get banned or blocked. What principles are there that can be invoked for reconsideration for an unfair ban or block? Or how can a permanent ban or block be reduced to a term that would allow the contributor, participant to return?
Is it still possible to post links to pages that don't yet exist on this wiki around here?
I seem to recall that such was acceptable, and that future readers/editors would then be entrusted to either create or not create the new page, or perhaps even to remove the brackets that made the word into a link (and therefore effectively either a request for a page or a suggestion that such a page would be a worthywhile/defendable page to create).
But I'm not quite sure if linking to pages that aren't yet in existence (a la a wiki) is still permitted on this wiki (which would be fine and could even be appropriate especially in realms involving promulgating Wikipedia via other channels).
And, is one even permitted to link to articles that don't yet exist on Wikipedia on discussion pages?
-;)Ozzyslovechild 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This section was probably written with someone with an axe to grind. It is irresponsible to make such serious and defamatory generalizations about the medical community without a single citation to back it up (except for a quote from George Bernard Shaw). This section belongs in a "conspiracy theories" Wiki. I added appropriate  to the article.
What is irresponsible is using an ignorant aspersion like "someone with an axe to grind" as though it is a legitimate reason to delete material you don't like. Especially such a tired aspersion like that. It is what health care professionals routinely say about injured patients in order to dismiss what they report (Sighalot (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)).
Here are a few citations for you to criticize before I use them to create a new paragraph about blacklisting in medicine: https://paradocpress.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/how-bad-doctors-blacklist-their-patients/ "It is not that there is a written list of patients that doctors have decided to screw. It is their nearly complete faith in themselves and each other coupled with their nearly complete lack of faith in patients. Blind, self-serving biases allow them to be unaware of it when they are doing it. "A patient being blacklisted can go from doctor to doctor to doctor without getting diagnosed or treated and never know why. " How is a patient who figures out that it is going on to persuade anyone of it? Where will be the proof? Doctors create the record. And the records are created to protect doctors, not patients.:Sighalot (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
http://www.sin-nl.org/pdf/pdf.php?artikel=deadly%20medical%20practices "Patients with iatrogenic illnesses often become victims of the blacklist. The problems usually start when medical mistakes are made (either intentionally or unintentionally) and denied. Then the lies and cover-up begin. Documents are often modified, falsified, mysteriously disappear, or important information is excluded from the record. Doctors will go to great lengths to avoid being held accountable, and are generally protected by their professional associations. Once the patient is blacklisted he can then expect to be subjected to character assassination from the medical profession. The patient can anticipate being attacked, discredited and demonized. "The patient will be labeled "difficult" or "psychiatric." Such pejorative labels are given to divert attention away from the negligent, incompetent or malpracticing doctor."(Sighalot (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
https://www.verywell.com/denied-medical-care-2615007 "When asked about the practice of blackballing or blacklisting, most healthcare professionals will deny any such system exists. Instead, some cite other means for denoting difficult patients in that patient's records. Others just say "everyone in our office just knows who they are. ". . . there have been reports of patients being blacklisted or blackballed in some fashion. Try as they will, these patients cannot get a doctor to see them. Sometimes they must go out of state or leave the country to find care."(Sighalot (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
In the not too distant past there were no good journal citations to back up statements about how seldom injurious events in medicine get put in the record. Now there are plenty, but no one in medicine believes them and dismisses them with "axe to grind," "generalization," "defamatory," etc. I'll let you find fault with the citations above so we can discuss that before I create a new paragraph about how blacklisting occurs in medicine. Articles like the one you deleted are what can help bring about the awareness necessary to motivate journal articles getting written (Sighalot (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)).
I did not write this, but will be glad to help clean this up with citations as soon as I can learn how. Medical blacklisting is a fact, long entrenched in physician culture, and it is definitely not a conspiracy theory. Heartfocus 06:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
im very interested in this section of the artical can some one exsplan it to me i found it to be very long and took me a long time to read and could not fully digest it. first of all doctors have a hypocratic oath that they shall do no harm. how can this confict with each other? is there a way that doctors could throw aside a hypocratic oath for the sake of money? im in understanding that if doctors feel they wont get paid for there service that they would refuse to treat people and let them die? some one should exsplain to me this section on this talk page. has medical blacklisting ever been resolved by now in early 21st century or does it still go on? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This comment about the conflict of interest between doctors is a misreading of the information about blacklisting. The conflict of interest in this case is between doctors and patients. When a treatment provider injures a patient, the last thing the treatment provider wants is for anyone to know about it. The first thing the patient needs is for someone else to know about it and treat the injuries. Does that fact really need citations? Isn't that so apparent that it can stand on its own?(Sighalot (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC))
I deleted most of the section. It contained nonfunctioning links and seemed to be full of unsubstantiated polemic. Far too much content compared to the rest of the article. The first paragraph was retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Prop 8 boycott
I deleted the paragraph "Other Blacklists" which implied that the boycott organized by gay activists against businesses that supported Prop 8 is a blacklist. This section seemed politically motivated to me as no other boycotts (and there have been many) were included as examples of "blacklists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libeditor (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since the linked page described itself as a blacklist, I'm not sure why this description is in question. And what do motivations have to do with it? If we removed everything from Wikipedia that had plausible political motivations, half of Wikipedia would disappear. If you have other examples, add them -- don't delete the one that was there. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be both impractical and nonsensical to list every boycott under the heading "blacklist" when there is currently a separate heading for boycotts. If you want to talk about the similarities between the two concepts and whether or not the topics should be merged, that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, but as things currently stand on wikipedia itself, the two topics are distinct. Furthermore, the blacklist article states, "The term blacklisting is generally used in a pejorative context, as it implies that someone has been prevented from having legitimate access to something due to the whims or judgments of another." Unless you want to make an argument that all businesses have a "legitimate" claim to each consumer's purchases, I do not see how a boycott fits Wikipedia's own explanation of blacklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libeditor (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- All right. I'll test your good faith on this. How about the following:
- "==Blacklist or boycott?==
- A blacklist is generally regarded as infringing on civil rights, since it represents the effort of a third party to hinder a voluntary transaction between two other parties. For example, the Hollywood blacklist put powerful outside pressure on film producers to refrain from hiring blacklisted screenwriters who they would otherwise likely have employed.
- This is distinct from a boycott, where a direct party to a transaction is encouraged to abandon the transaction to further his larger moral interests. For example, the civil rights boycotts organized in the American South in the 1950s encouraged black Americans to cease patronizing businesses known to have discriminatory policies towards blacks. Since a direct party voluntarily chooses not to make a transaction, no violation of civil rights takes place. (A business has no "right" to patronage.)
- The distinction between blacklists and boycotts can become blurred. For example, following the passage of Proposition 8 in California in November 2008, a Web site appeared under the URL antigayblacklist.com, which listed names and business information of persons who made large donations to the Yes On 8 campaign and called for visitors to avoid patronizing these businesses. Although describing itself as a blacklist, the site might more properly be termed a call to boycott. However, one of the individuals on the list, Scott Eckern, was subsequently pressured to resign as Artistic Director of the California Musical Theater. This outcome more closely resembled that of the classical blacklist than of the classical boycott."
Well, I guess I pass the test because, to be honest, I think this is great. I think it explains the distinction between a boycott and blacklist well, while showing fairly how the two can become blurred and why some people feel they have become especially blurred in this particular circumstance. (Which makes it seem to make sense to talk about Prop 8 in the blacklist section but not, say, the Montgomery bus boycott). I think it presents both sides in a rather neutral way, instead of just stating, as was stated previously, that the Prop 8 boycott was a blacklist and leaving it at that. The only thing I might add, though I'm not sure it's completely necessary, is to explicitly state that the pressure on Scott Eckern to resign resulted from gays and lesbians boycotting his theater. The reason I think it is important to point this out is because I think you are right that the outcome here seems to resemble a blacklist more than a boycott, but it is still the result of the consumerist aspect of it as opposed to say, a handful of people in power systematically firing their employees who donated to Yes on 8, and I think that should be made clear.
We might also note that a danger of boycotts based on political thought as opposed to say race or sex (and why they can easily seem to become blacklists) is that in the latter case, Title VII protects employees from being fired due to customer preference. Thus, if, for example, females as a group suddenly decided that they only wanted female doctors and refused to be seen by male doctors (i.e. boycotted them), Title VII would protect male doctors from being fired, even in clinics that cater specifically to women. Whereas, there is no protection, at least for private employees (as opposed to governmental employees), from being fired for customer preferences in political thought (i.e. if people only wanted to see Democratic doctors, there would be no national law preventing all the Republicans from being fired). But that might be a little too far off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libeditor (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. I'm going to put it in pretty much as written, and leave it to you to refine.188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, any mention of Prop 8 in the article on general blacklists is totally pointless and should be deleted - this is an article about a general concept, not a list of blacklists. Any specific blacklists must be SUPER EXCEPTIONAL to get a mention on this page. The only one that I can think of that even remotely qualifies is the McCarthy-era anti-Communist blacklist which was a major cultural force. There may be others, but Prop 8's certainly isn't doing it for me. mistercupcake (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. This shouldn't be a WP:COATRACK for opinions about Prop 8 or any other cause. --FOo (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The section labeled "Screenwriting" does not appear to be about the same subject as the rest of the article. Despite the name "The Black List" (which I'm guessing is tongue-in-cheek or "ironic"), this is not an instance of anyone being blacklisted, i.e. prevented from working in their chosen field; they are merely screenplays which have not been produced (some of which subsequently are). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
With respect to the text "They also point out that "white list" is not the opposite of a blacklist, but rather a list, often kept by unions, of people suitable for employment. Refers to the "white-list".", note 1 - Who are "They"? I assume it means the aforementioned Encyclopedia, but it that case couldn't it read "The Encyclopedia"?; note 2 - I don't understand the last bit "Refers to the "white-list"."Masonmilan (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It notes "citation needed" after the bit I've put in quotes below, but should this be removed in the meantime? Also, I'm a bit confused as to why this article comes under the US - blacklisting is general enough and shouldn't be linked to a specific country. In the past, lists of union members have been shared or circulated between multiple organizations to prevent hiring of employees who have been critical of management or advocated on behalf of members of their profession. In Canada, CLAC operates such a blacklist.
Would You kindly put wikipedia blacklists somewhere so we can read them
- Yes, I too would like to browse the list. I referenced what I thought was a well-written article on the current lawsuit of Ron Paul supporters only to see the site with the article was on the list. I too would like to read through the WP list of disallowed sites for my future work. I've searched a bit in vain for any WP page with the list. Is it like the teacher that said, "There are no rules to speak of but if you break one, I'll tell you."? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charivari is a sort of blacklisting. I suggest this should be added to the list of sideways links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has numerous European socialist "blacklisters" who blacklist or exclude political parties not in line with liberal policies or that cannot be categorized or defined in a manner that they can easily edit to include their spin on the party those areas of definitions they do not like. Many of these so called "editors" are from socialist European countries, espousing socialist ideals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:29FF:3CF0:0:0:0:33 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
" In 1907 the Transvaal Medical Union in South Africa blacklisted patients if they could not pay cash in advance. In this case, there was a physical list kept by the community of physicians. A physical list is not necessary to blacklist patients but the effect is the same."
I understood it as - if they didn't paid in advance - they got blacklisted. But not sure is this text even truth. Only how I understood it. And by "physical list" I guess that author of that text meant that the written blacklist exist rather than was shared verbally. The way it is written there however is confusing to be honest. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been informed adding chemical castration, ku (poison) and zersetzung to the see also section would be an 'unconstructive edit.' The fact I have not been given any reasons why makes we wonder what the true reason is, especially given the article was nominated for deletion by the same person apparently shortly thereafter. How can someone consider an unconstructive edit can be made to an unconstructive page. I also oppose deletion of this article but I think its just fine and dandy. However change is inevitable and so improvement is better than making things worse, I think. Just want to hasten to assure everybody Im not at risk of thinking any homophobia on the part of Mr Smith here should be a concern. Almost forgot. What do you think, is that an unconstructive edit or not. - 55378008a (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I noted on your user talk page, I don't think that your addition edit was unconstructive, but merely ill-conceived, and not a real improvement, as none of the linked articles seem to mention anything about blacklisting. I don't see any connection there. By the way, that deletion nomination seems to be (i.m.o. rightly) reverted, so no problem there. - DVdm (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi I am new as a Wikipedian and on the citation for The Cape Dr. it is for a book that cost money in order to see it and I believed that everything on wiki had to be free as they provide everything free for us as well. But bare with me as I am new. Itssammy (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)itssammyItssammy (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)