Talk:List of books banned by governments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Should banned poetry be included?

There's a LONG list of poets whose work has been banned or at least challenged--Sappho is a good example. Should there be a separate section for poetry, or should it be a different article altogether?--Arzim (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's outside the scope of this article, at least under the current name. Books banned because they contain banned poetry wolud be within the scope of the article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to moving the article to a broader name such as "list of banned literature" to cover poetry. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.34.220 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

List of banned books in the US & Europe or something might be more appropriate. If you go through all the books ever printed, you'll easily find that millions of them were banned under various authoritarian/communist/democratic regimes, including many non controversial (based on mainstream interpretation in the US/Europe/Western World) ones. The separate articles idea sounds good, but my only reservation about that is that many of those may wind up empty in many countries/religions. The list we have here is pretty short as it is... Maybe it could be separated by region/ideology, something that worldwide has fewer categories. FantajiFan (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (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)

There's virtually no mention of Ireland, which, according to Robert Graves, suffered, "the fiercest literary censorship this side of the Iron Curtain." Ausseagull (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (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.

Why is the Bible's author cited as God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersquirt (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone again for no given reason. Put it back in again.203.206.162.148 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hear! Hear! This article needs dates, whether they are the publishing date, banning date or the unbanning date, the date it was written or all of the above! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (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)

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)

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)

Some of these listed for Banned in the US need a source (ex. Farenheit 451, which, to my knowledge, has never been banned in the US and is required reading for US high school students in most states. Having it listed as "banned in the US" clearly gives the wrong impression, and such censorship is not mentioned in the books wiki entry. Thoughts? -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.99.4 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 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)

the Marquis de Sade?

He is one of the most infamous banned authors of all time, with most of his works being banned everywhere at one point or another, including a work which was completely banned for over 100 years. yet I see no mention of him or any of his writings in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.129.165 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

because we need a source documenting the bannings.Geni 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We could use some dates

The list is unclear as to whether or not certain books are still banned in the named countries. I cannot imagine Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" being banned in Britain or France in a very long time, for example. The list should at least try and provide an indication as to whether books are currently or were previously banned in various countries. If the current legal status of a book is unknown for a country, then it should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.82.222 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The list is severely deficient without dates (and even countries in some cases). Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also. The idea of censorship inherently deals with time periods and locales... the article isn't accurate by any stretch of the imagination if there isn't proper historical documentation.--Arzim (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lovely Bones

I know The Lovely Bones is challenged in some libraries/schools, but I don't know if it's banned anywhere or not. I won't add it to the list until I can get proof that it has been banned anywhere. --72.230.46.168 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Italics?

Aren't book titles supposed to be italicized per WP:MOS? Is there a specific reason why the italics are omitted from this list? · Tygrrr^·talk· 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that book titles should be italics when they are in the text of an article. But when they are listed, then italics is not necessary. -- Frap 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? After clicking random articles in Category:Lists of books, it seems that most of the pages italicize the title when in list form. · Tygrrr^·talk· 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

TOO SHORT

WORK ON THIS LIST. IT'S TOO SHORT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.56.125.99 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Violent Books?

Almost every other article on media censorship mentions studies concerning the effects of consuming that media, especially violent examples of it on children. Have any studies been done with books and, if so, what were the results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ram Swarup and Taslima Nasrin

Why are the banned books of Ram Swarup and Taslima Nasrin missing on this page? At least the latter used to be on this page. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

Nearly all these claims seem to be unsourced. What's up with that? --Tony Sidaway 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them are incredibly vague. For instance, "banned in some schools". In which country? When? By whom? --Tony Sidaway —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Making of a Gadol

The Making of a Gadol by Nathan Kamenetsky, a biography of Aharon Kotler, has been banned by Haredi Jews. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos Diary

I've removed an entry for a Casimir Dukahz novel called "The Asbestos Diary" because the claim that it has been banned "worldwide" is somewhat improbable. Moreover a check on Amazon shows that at least one copy is available from a UK reseller to anybody who wants to pay $60. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: make more formal distinctions

I've already noted that many of the entries in the article are vague about the kind of suppression in operation, who is responsible, when it started and when (if ever) it ended. Perhaps one way to move towards proper sourcing would be to be clearer about what kinds of suppression are in operation.

I think we should probably draw a more formal distinction between those books that have suffered from organised and effective suppression and those which have been challenged and removed from school reading lists, public libraries, and the like. It's certainly appropriate to recognise that limitation of availability of certain books can be effected by the latter form of suppression, but it is by no means as powerful as state suppression.

One way we could do this would be to produce separate sections, for instance, for books successfully challenged in US libraries, books proscribed by religious organisations, and so on. Some books would appear in more than one section. I'm interested in other editors' thoughts on this. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

None of what you list is actually banned (except in the case of the catholic church). Books can only actually be banned by a nation state. Removal from libraries does not mean a book is banned if it takes place in a capitalist economy.Genisock2 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've previously argued that books being removed from school libraries is very different to people not being allowed to possess them. Both are worthy of record, but it seems to me misleading to put them in the same article. --Cherry blossom tree 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps listing in a different article would be best, though of course any such article should be tightly bound to this one because the distinction can be quite subtle. Ulysses was for instance banned in the UK and the USA but was never banned by any government of Ireland, but it was listed as a blacklisted obscene book by the Irish customs and the Irish publishers wouldn't touch it because of its sexually explicit content (which was regarded as obscene in Ireland, the UK and the USA for most of the twentieth century). We should perhaps move to delineate more fully the different mechanisms by which a publication may be suppressed. --Tony 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way of managing these banned books is to let them read by the people who are already have a strong foundation of character. --Mog urr (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a distinct difference between books which have been/are banned and books that have been discouraged. I think they use the term "challenged" for books which have been suggested for banning. Maybe a separation of the list between "challenged" and "banned" would be useful. But Tony Sidaway makes a great point that there is potential interest for lists of books which have been banned/challenged by particular organizations other than governments and school boards. Should this subject be fleshed out into multiple lists on one article, or multiple articles?--Arzim (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that a more formalized set of parameters need to be put into place. This arbitrarily removing great numbers of books from a list of banned books by just anyone must be stopped. Books that are 'banned' but an entire country and books that are simply challenge by a bunch of busy body electoids are completely different cases. EraserGirl (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret

I don't think this book was banned. I mean, whenever it comes up in conversation my mom starts remiising about having to read it in middle school. I think that is A)someone's opinion that it should be banned or B) OR or vandalisimEmma Hordika (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

Proposal: remove all uncited entries

The vast majority of all entries contain little information about how and when they were banned, and are even a little vague about who did the banning.

I propose to remove all uncited entries, which will trim this article down much smaller than it is currently, but will have the advantage of providing us with hard information to work on, and giving the reader clear information instead of vague suggestions that a book might possibly have been banned at some time. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Remarque's books were banned and burned by the Nazi's in 1930, and across Europe over the proceeding years. Remarque escaped the Nazi's via Switzerland and then to the States. Simply commenting titles off the list does not make a fact untrue. EraserGirl (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I provided a proper citation. This is an historical documented fact. Are we rewriting history now? EraserGirl (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Mafia

This list should probably have an entry for The Federal Mafia, by Irwin Shiff Hoplophile (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It should have lots of things. Feel free to add it if you can document the banning with a reliable source. EraserGirl (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gina Kaus

I'm appealing here for a little help. I am collating data for the Gina Kaus article, (don't look, it is still a stub). I know that her works, especially her racy 1933 novel Dark Angel were among the works banned and tossed on the pyre during the Bücherverbrennung, along with works by her friends Karl Kraus and Otto Soyka. But I have not as yet found a good source for to verify that information. If someone comes across the mention in any of their research can you please, leave the title of the reference on the Kaus talk page? Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Country and timeframe columns

Most of the entries lack timeframes, and quite a few lack country information, should we add country and timeframe columns? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That may clutter the list up needlessly. That information can be gained from the article about the book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

List of banned films includes timeframe and country information. They don't necessarily need their own columns, but I think that the information should be incorporated into all entries to provide context. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible banned in P. R. China?

I am a Chinese, and I lived in China for twenty-two years. I am not a Christian but I have Christian friends. I've bought a copy of Bible in China (from a church through a friend, I remember). The Bible is definitely not banned in China, at least not in the past ten years.

If nobody can give a reference, I'll remove that statement in a few days. –Ming Hua (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed. –Ming Hua (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Be Careful

Be careful when adding text to a table. If you don't add the correct code it won't appear on the article. I just spent sometime fixing it so more of the banned books that were written into the article actually appear on its face. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

This article has some serious clarity issues. "Banned" can mean anything from "not allowed in public schools" to "illegal to possess or sell". IMO if a book is outright illegal, we should say so in unambiguous terms, and if a book is merely banned from public libraries or schools, we should include a statement along the lines of "banned from schools in ..." or "banned from public libraries in ..." rather than just "banned in ...". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In countries with a free market economy being banned in libraries can not in any was be considered to equate to actual banning.Geni 12:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Because a person is still free to perchase and own a copy of a book. It is unreasonable to suggest that a goverment refusal to provide something means that it is banned (goverments won't provide i-pods does that mean they are banned?).Geni 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So I was just looking at the talk page and it seems that this has been argued before. Its actually amusingly ironic in a way since people are arguing what books are worthy to be called banned. I would love to see the reactions of some of those authors, but sigh that is not likely to happen. I don't think you are a troll or reckless mind you, I find some of your arguments do make sense, so I'm content to see how this plays out. I still find that this list can be expanded, do you have any suggestions for books that should be there that are not? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum contained up to 4000 books. How many would you like to include on this list?Geni 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

O, maybe not that long of a list, but considering history and the number of nations this world has, it would appear that there are some significant bans that are missing. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For example: Popular/controversial books that would be recognizable to many people that are banned or were banned in one country or another. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is where it gets tricky due to wikipedia's systemic bias. For various reasons the Anglophone world has largely given up banning books since about the mid 60s.Geni 23:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rights of Man?

I can find no reference in the articles on Thomas Paine and Rights of Man to it having been banned in England. Indeed it went to a second edition in 1793. Certainly it was controversial, but was it actually banned? The cited reference does not state that Rights of Man was ever banned anywhere. And of course it is certainly not banned in the UK nowadays! Also Paine was apparently charged with seditious libel not treason. Rachel Pearce (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff removed

I've removed a considerable number of entries that had been tagged as unsourced in February and remained so to this day. Please add back any that you can reliably source, with source. --Jenny 15:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

Lord of the Flies is also well known for being a banned book, yet is not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.98 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfidy

It is well known that Perfidy by Ben Hecht was banned in Israel until recently. Although I have never edited so I don't know what is a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.180.176 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Challenged books 2

This is essentially a continuation of the "Challenged books" section above, but that was years ago so I am adding it as a new section at the current bottom of this talk page.

I agree challenged books that are not banned should be removed from the list of banned books. Further, I see the only person opposing this argument years ago (Larry Fafarman) was himself banned from editing Wikipedia because of his abuse of Wiki policy. So I say his arguments, the argument of an abusive, indefinitely banned user, are of little weight.

• If the book is not banned, it's not banned and does not belong on this list.
• If the book is challenged, but not banned, it does not belong on a list of banned books.
• If the book is challenged, but called banned, that is an POV problem, so it does not belong on this list.
• If the book is "banned" by a single school, but is not truly banned as in the true meaning of banning, then that is a definitional situation that really means the books was not banned, and so it does not belong on this list.
• If any book has been removed from a public school in accordance with the Bd of Ed v. Pico case from the US Supreme Court, then, besides the above, that is legal and cannot be defined as banning, and so that book should be removed from a list of banned books.

There are people and organizations who benefit from misleading people into thinking a challenged book is a banned book. This is Wikipedia. We are here for accuracy, not for promoting the views of those who benefit as described. We must be accurate. A banned book should be a banned book, not a challenged book. As one ALA Councilor put it, "the thing we know about banned books week that we don't talk about much--the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. while i think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all." Bingo!

An alternative solution would be to rename this article to "List of Banned and Challenged Books," to explain the difference, and to indicate into which category a particular book falls. For example, no book has been banned in the US for many, many years, yet let a school remove a pervasively vulgar book from a public school in accordance with Bd of Educ v. Pico and the people and organizations who benefit from misleading people into thinking a challenged book is a banned book go into a major blowup and even go so far as to create a false Banned Books Week. This Wiki page does not need to be guided by such an organization's own misleading definition. And it doesn't need to be guided by me. It just needs to be truthful.

So I would like people to again consider the original issue raised here, namely, removing challenged books from the list of banned books. Alternatively, rename the page to one that accurately reflects its contents.

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is named "list of banned books", not "list of books banned under criminal law", a ban by a local school board is still a ban, it just isn't necessarily a notable ban. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of ban. A school "banning" a book does NOT make the book banned by the definition used on this Wiki page. Schools are constantly "banning," using your definition, books. Is this supposed to be a page listing those thousands of local choices? No. This is a page about books really banned using the real definition of banned. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This wiki page doesn't use any explicit definition of ban, and a society can consist of half a dozen people or half a billion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning is when a government broadly stops people from seeing/hearing things as a matter of government policy. Banning is not when a school decides a book is pervasively vulgar and removes it as educationally unsuitable as in Bd of Educ v. Pico -- and some organization claiming that that is censorship or calling it banning or creating a Banned Books Week does not make it so.

This is a wiki page that follows wiki policies -- this is not a page for some organization to promote its views that children must have access to anything, else it's censorship or banning. Some parents wanted a book in public school that included bestiality removed from the school, but the de facto leader of the ALA claimed that was racist because the bestiality book was authored by a person with a certain skin color. Are we supposed to go to the racism page and list the attempted removal of the book as evidence of racism just because the ALA leader says it is? Same applies here. Are we supposed to list books as banned when they are not merely because the same person's office lists them as banned when they are not?

This page may not define banning, but that is because it links to the banning page that defines it. Using that definition as intended, hence the link, many books claimed to be banned by the ALA simply are not banned in reality. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

First, which dictionary are you using? Second, the wiki does have policies, such as the verifiability policy which provides rules for sources, it also has guidelines, such as the notability guidelines, that policy and those guidelines should be sufficient to prevent the situation you seem to be worried about. Third, the only thing I'm advocating here is accurate article naming. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The point I made in the original discussion was that a particular library deciding not to stock a book is fundamentally different to the publication/possession of a book being prohibited. I can't find a definition of ban that would apply to the former - people aren't forbidden from reading a book, they just have to get it from somewhere else. This doesn't mean that books being challenged in school libraries is unimportant and should be removed from Wikipedia, it should just be in a different article. --Cherry blossom tree 08:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Geni in this edit implicitly points out just how poorly this page is written. Geni removed the claim that "The Giver" is banned in the USA. Nothing has been banned in the USA for decades. A "List of Banned Books" should not contain books that are not banned. It's that simple. Any book on this list that claims that it was banned in the past few decades in the USA should be removed just like Geni removed "The Giver." Else, as I said above, find some other method of providing truthful and accurate information instead of promoting the politically-driven views of the American Library Association and its false claims of censorship. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just made some edits like Geni. I have my eye on The Catcher in the Rye. Right now it only says it is challenged. At least it says that. But if it was not banned, it doesn't belong on a list of banned books, particularly where it's the only one, I think, that says it is challenged. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a mistaken idea of the purpose of this article. A book does not have to be banned from an entire society at large to be considered "banned." Local bans (even a single school district) also count. Trying to drag your anti-ALA agenda into articles such as this is simply tendentioius and disruptive to Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But if a book is not banned, it is not banned. That has nothing to do with anti-ALA as you say.

Now Loonymonkey added a reference to show Black Boy was banned. The reference is from a publisher and it says, "From 1975 to 1978, Black Boy was banned in schools throughout the United States for 'obscenity' and 'instigating hatred between the races.'" That naked statement without more fails as a reliable source as required by Wikipedia. We could just as well use an ALA site and claim hundreds of books have been banned, but that too would fail under reliable source.

Further, a school removing a book for reasons of educational unsuitability has nothing to do with banning as banning is truly defined.

Until a reliable source is found, and I doubt it will be, Black Boy will be removed as a banned book because it is NOT a banned book. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The publisher of the book is a reliable source for information about the history of the book itself, but I've added an additional reference to the Guardian UK to eliminate the WP:RS concern. You keep claiming that this information isn't correct, but you haven't provided any source to counter it. (I would add that your claims of what is or isn't a reliable source are rather inconsistently applied as just a few minutes ago you tried to cite an opinion piece from a blog as a reliable source.) Your opinion that a book being banned by a school district or library system doesn't actually count as being "banned" is simply that...your opinion. I would add that it is an opinion for which there is no consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, we don't have to be antagonistic toward each other while this page is worked.

The blog I cited is in the talk page where standards are looser, not on the main page where wikipedia does not deem it a reliable source.

What wikipedia rules and policies demand is a MSM article on the book having been banned in the USA. The second cite you provided does not say this, or anything close. Instead it says, "the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas this week identifies 62 titles that were removed from school libraries during the 2003-04 school year following objections from parents or teachers." So it indicates that 62 titles have been removed from school libraries following objections. The schools removed them, not the objectors. There is a difference. The schools would not have removed them if they did not agree with the objections. That is not banned in the sense of banned books. Challenged? Yes. Banned. No. The books are still available anywhere, including the public library in those very towns. They have just been removed from the school for one reason or another. That is not banning except to those with a POV.

Books being removed from schools is a legitimate issue that needs addressing. But this is the "List of Banned Books" page, and schools removing books does not make them banned. And MSM stories saying the books were banned from schools does not mean anything other that the author's POV is that books removed from schools by schools for educational reasons are banned. Besides, it's easier and sexier to say the book was banned -- gives it a kind of cache and makes for better reading.

So the additional source you have provided is reliable for what it says, but what it says is not that the books were banned as in the sense of books really being banned like they were half a century ago. Think about it. Just one year, just in Texas, 62 books were banned? Spread across the USA that would mean hundreds of books would be banned. But have you heard a peep in the media about the totalitarian tactics of the evil Bush administration banning hundreds of books nationwide? No. Because it has not happened. Schools appropriately removing books, often in concurrence with Board of Education v. Pico, is simply not the same as banning. Serious, yes. Banning, no This is the banned books list page, not the seriously challenged books list page.

You have indicated I am trying to push some agenda of my own by demanding only banned books appear on the banned books page. Yes, following wiki policy is my personal agenda. Books not actually banned do not belong on the banned books page. MSM articles that books are removed from public schools are not reliable sources for the claim that the government has banned the books and made them impossible to buy and illegal to own, or whatever the true definition of banning is. Show me the stories about the public noticing the disappearance of hundreds of books nationwide or the government issuing executive orders that "Primary Colors," e.g., is henceforth and forevermore anathema in the USA, and that may be a reliable source for what you are saying.

You have said I have not provided a reliable source that the book is not banned. Tricky, but no such article exists precisely because the book has not been banned. Removed from schools here and there, yes, but not banned.

Look at the other entries. Countries or religions banning books from wide swaths of land and huge numbers of people, all for political reasons even if religious undertones are present. That's banning. A school following Board of Education v. Pico because the books are pervasively vulgar, that is not banning. Important, yes. Banning, no.

In sum,

• reliable source problems remain. Also,
• the book has not been banned, although some schools deemed it inappropriate for their collection. Also,
• a book that is not banned does not belong on the banned books page. Finally,
• the claim that books removed from schools are equal in status to books truly banned is in itself a point of view not allowed on wikipedia.

Therefore, I will persist in my original arguments and add the claim that POV problems exist where someone claims a book not banned is banned if a school removes it.

I await input from others as well. The more the merrier. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a reasonable period of for others to comment. Then I'll let someone else make the necessary changes, if any. I see Loonymonkey reverted my edits and added the second unreliable source. But if the main page remains unchanged after discussion here and time has passed, I'll make the changes myself. Again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to Board of Education v. Pico? The United States Supreme Count has the authority to rule on matters of American law, they have no authority over the non-legal definitions of words within the English language, and none of the common English-language definitions of the word ban refer exclusively to illegal prohibitions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Zee problem is that under the argument you are useing ipods are banned in the US since most libaries and schools do not supply them. While things can get a bit fuzzy around the edges (say the book can only be aquired with goverment permission) the refusal of goverment institutions to supply something in a capitalist country does not mean that is has been banned.Geni 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First, there's a difference between direct, active prohibition (i.e. specifically prohibiting Madonna's Sex), indirect prohibition (i.e. not carrying Madonna's Sex due to a general policy against sexually explicit books) and passive non-inclusion (i.e. not carrying Madonna's Sex because they don't have an unlimited budget or shelf space and thought other books were more important). Second, many libraries ban food and drinks, but food and drinks shouldn't be mentioned in this article because they're not books. Third, there are notability and verifiability requirements. IMO in order to be included in this list, a book must either be actively, directly and verifiably banned on a large scale or the ban (whether direct or indirect) must be notable for some other reason, such as widespread press coverage, a major court case or a documentary focusing on the banning which is itself notable. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"indirect prohibition" produces very few google results and doesn't appear to be used in the way you suggest. In any event trying to equate "indirect prohibition" as you are useing it to banning is flawed as the two are in no way equivalent.Geni 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the best term I could think of at the time, perhaps "specific prohibition" and "categorical prohibition", "nonspecific prohibition" or "incidental prohibition" would be better terms. I'll rephrase things. There are three issues: the definition of "banned book", notability and verifiability. IMO the definition of banned book is fairly simple. Any prohibition of anything anywhere for any reason is technically a ban. Any book prohibited anywhere for any reason is technically a banned book. For notability, I believe that this article should be a list of books whose bannings are individually notable. If a book is specifically named, singled out and prohibited by federal or national legislation or other regulations, I think the banning is probably notable, if a book is specifically named, singled out and prohibited by provincial or state legislation or state regulations, I think the banning might be notable. If a case primarily revolving around the prohibition of a specific book makes it to a country's supreme court or equivalent, I think the banning is probably notable even if the book wasn't singled out by legislation or other regulations. If the prohibition of a specific book (or a court case or document focusing on the banning) gets major media coverage, I think that would make the banning notable. If none of those criteria are met, I think the banning probably isn't notable, which would exclude most or all of the books from ALA's list. As for verifiability, I think that at least one reliable source should confirm that the banning meets the notability criteria. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

LAEC, your entire argument rests on your attempt to unilaterally define "banned" in a very narrow way (meaning not available anywhere within the society) that is not supported by anything other than your own opinion. You have no consensus (or authority) on this matter to establish such arbitrary guidelines based on your own beliefs. Your long analysis above, while interesting, is still simply your opinion and your own research. Attempting to base the guidelines for a Wikipedia on one editors research and opinion is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. And finally, claiming that the second ref is "unreliable" is simply incorrect. The Guardian newspaper is absolutely a reliable source. We have a reliable source that says the book was banned (that's the exact language used) so that's that. Threatening to engage in an edit-war does not help the situation at all. Please do not remove reliably sourced material based on your your personal opinion or your overt agenda. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, you are at the personal attack again. I did not threated to engage in an edit war. Quite the contrary, I am staying out of what you started by reverting my edit. And I stated if no action is taken, I will eventually do it again myself. That couldn't be further from edit warring if you tried.

Your reliable source needs to support what is being claimed. It doesn't. It supports, reliably, something else. That is a violation of RS.

As to your claim of my OR on my definition of banned, I specifically steered clear of that. As it stands now the definition of banned is yours, where books not banned are called banned for political purposes or marketing purposes. Yet you are telling me its mine. It is not mine. The concept of banned does not come from me. It comes from the true meaning of banned, not the political one that the American Library Association is in the forefront of pushing. The ALA claims any book removed from school is banned, hence there are hundreds if not thousands of banned books every year. THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. Yes, I oppose the ALA's efforts to redefine words for political purposes, but that does not mean I may not complain here that the ALA's definition of banned appears to be in use here and that it is false. misleading, and designed for political purposes the ALA promotes. This is wikipedia and we do what's right, not what the loud voices at the ALA have convinced people and the media to say is right. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. I'm not sure what you're referring to in that regard. And yes, by stating that you will "eventually" remove the material yourself, regardless of what consensus or discussion says, you are threatening to edit war.

I really don't understand your problem with the reliable source provided, but the fact remains that it is reliably sourced and that's enough. On the one hand we have a reliable source that says the book was banned. On the other hand, you have your own opinion as to what actually constitutes "banning" which you feel should negate reliable sources. Sorry, but that would violate every principal of Wikipedia. This article does not have a specific definition of banned (yours or anyone else's) so we simply rely on reliable sources to indicate which books have been banned.

And finally, as expected, this all comes back to the ALA again. That is exactly what I'm referring to when I speak of agenda-driven editing. You run an anti-ALA blog with a rather fringe viewpoint and you've carried this agenda onto Wikipedia. The rest of us are just trying to make a good encyclopedia that is based on reliable sources. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop making this about me. It's not about me. The de facto leader of the ALA is here on TV talking about the hundreds of books banned from schools nationwide ( http://blip.tv/file/1209251 ) when that is simply false. No books are banned in the USA and haven't been for decades. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with the ALA. Stop raising me as the excuse to promote your POV.

It is a fact that no books have been banned in the USA for decades. Books on a banned books page should be banned to be listed here. I really do not understand why there is any opposition to that obvious statement, except when POV gets involved, and that POV is illustrated in the clip I just linked to provide an illustration of how that same POV should not be reflected on this page, as it is when you continually say books "banned" in schools should be on the banned books list.

Like "The Lorax" by Dr. Suess has been "banned," according to the ALA. Really? In truth it was not banned--one community choose to challenge it, but that's it, and it does not get listed on the Banned Books page on wikipedia, unless you use POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're just arguing semantics now (choosing to call some banned books "challenged" rather than "banned"). But none of that matters. The fact remains that there currently isn't a specific definition for what constitutes a banned book in this article (and especially not a narrow agenda-driven definition as you would like to impose) so we simply go by what the reliable sources say. There's really nothing left to discuss on the matter. We have a reliable source that says "Black Boy" was banned so it stays in the article. Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the matter.

If you really want to redefine what constitutes a banned book, then that is a major undertaking and an entirely separate discussion from this one about whether that book belongs under the current state of the article. If you're genuinely serious about wanting to set the definition, I would suggest that you initiate a request for comment for this article (being careful to follow the guidelines and, very important, write the RfC in a neutral manner that does not indicate your personal opinion) and let the community handle this one. That is how Wikipedia works. Feel free to contact me (or better, an uninvolved administrator) if you need help with the RfC process. Good luck. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that books that have been challanged or even actualy removed from schools and public libaries have somehow been banned in a capitalist nation is non credible and a clear example of US centric bias.Geni 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. On what is your opinion based? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On how the term have been used by the majority of the world since the invention of printing and sometime before. For example in the vactican states. Or the various books banned in the UK prior to the 60s.Geni 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you're simply edit-warring over this issue (and ironically, your request for Admin status was rejected just this morning. Good decision, it seems.). In your edit summary, you've falsely claimed consensus where none exists. There is no consensus to include only books banned on the national level. That is simply your opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If we take the definition of ban as given in any dictionary (something like to prohibit or forbid) then in what sense is a book 'banned' by whichever school board actually banned? The strongest phrasing you could make is that school libraries are banned from stocking it. To describe the book itself as 'banned' without this qualification is misleading. But whatever term you use to describe this situation, it is clearly very different to the traditional sense that User:Geni described and putting it in a list with Lady Chatterley's Lover and all the rest is also misleading. As I have said before, these are two separate issues and should be covered in two separate articles. --Cherry blossom tree 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is personal opinion. Geni is simply stating his opinion as to what he personally feels the word means, but there is nothing to back that opinion up. Nowhere does it say that an article must be banned from the entire society in order to be included on this list. Banned from a single school district is still banned, the scope of the ban is irrelevant. As stated earlier, there isn't a given definition of banned for this article, so we simply go on what the reliable sources say. Since there is a reliable source that says this book is banned, it belongs in the article. Arguing semantics and claiming that the reliable source is wrong based on one's own opinion or original research is counter to Wikipedia. As I said, if there direction of this argument is to change the article to define what actually constitutes "banned" then that is an entirely separate (and larger) matter requiring more input than just the small lot of us. An WP:RfC would be in order. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh try again. It isn't under US law posible to ban a book from a school district. The closest you could get without messing with the constitution would be to ban the sale of the book within a school district (and even that would be somewhat tricky). About the only think you could ban possession of would be a book of child porn photos (well there is the born secret stuff but that has never been shown to be consistutional).Geni 19:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing in circles. Again, that is your opinion as to how the word should be defined for the purposes of this article. However, no such definition exists for this article. Lacking a definition, we must simply rely on reliable sources. Your edit warring and your attempts to own the article are extremely disruptive and will be made note of if (when) you make a fourth attempt at adminship. In the meantime, I'm not going to edit war with you, so I'll be initiating an RfC in the next couple days and we'll let the community decide what the definition should be. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

rm indent. Threats will get you no where and are unhelpful. Still let us consider say List of banned films Strangely mear challages or removal from libiaries doesn't get a look in.Geni 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to User:Loonymonkey, 19:32, 28 August 2008) Yes, of course it's my opinion. I'm giving my opinion, you're giving yours. That's how discussions work. The problem is that this book isn't banned from the school district - school libraries within that district have been banned from carrying it. It can still be published, owned and read by anyone who cares to do so. The fact that this is a different scenario to some of the other books on the list cannot be seriously debated. We currently have one list with books from both of these distinct categories mixed in together with no differentiation, which is confusing. The obvious solution, therefore, seems to be to split them up. I would be interested to hear you articulate the problems you see with this approach, which so far you don't appear to have done. --Cherry blossom tree 21:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, of course we all have opinions but the problem is that you're attempting to determine the content of the article based solely on your personal opinion. That's not how wikipedia works. We rely on reliable sources not original research. As for splitting the article into two, that is one solution although it would seem much easier and more user-friendly to simply define this article (and/or retitle it) so that we can specify what is included and what isn't (without a small cabal of regulars editors unilaterally claiming to own the article). Then, if necessary, we can create a separate article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally. Loonymonkey is suggesting some of what I originally suggested when I reraised this issue that is going on for over a year or more. That's progress. As to the definition of banning, I thought we were using the one on the banning page itself. Be that as it may, if Loonymonkey starts some means for getting more eyes on the prize, then I support that as well. I only wish Loonymonkey would stop raising extraneous personal matters not related to this page, like about Geni's adminship, so we can have a discussion without personal attack.

Now we have a number of people commenting here. Only Loonymonkey is saying banning means whatever the media says it means. He does not care that saying banning is a means for selling papers or a means for promoting the political view that children should have access to anything, despite the law, because to do otherwise is claimed to be "banning" or "censorship." Everyone else is saying banning means the kind of banning where, for example, governments prevent entire populations from accessing certain materials. But Loonymonkey say that's OR. Hogwash.

Books removed from schools are not banned, and if the media uses the word "banned" to described books removed from schools, that does not mean the books are banned, as Loonymonkey explicitly says it does. Banned books are banned, not removed from schools for reasons of educational unsuitability. That would be totally ridiculous to call books removed from schools "banned." Imagine, if you will, a kindergarten library where some books are "banned" for being too mature for the children. You could literally have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of books "banned" from such libraries. Are they really banned? Of course not. If the media says they are banned, are they really banned? Of course not. If the American Library Association says they are banned, are they really banned? Of course not. Should this page be filled with the thousands of books "banned" from kindergarten libraries? Of course not.

No book has been banned in the USA for many decades. Hundreds of books are removed from schools for educational unsuitability, and the media and the ALA says they are "banned." So what. Wikipedia should use the correct meaning, not the political one or the one that sells papers. Everyone is saying this, except Loonymonkey, and he consistently uses personal attack against a number of people. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying here is that the reliable sources are all wrong and that you are right. Sorry, that's just not how Wikipedia works. Your theory about what constitutes a banned book is your own personal opinion based on your own research. It is not based on any reliable source. That violates the very core principals of Wikipedia including WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Yes, I am well aware that I am outnumbered three to one at the moment but no, I am not the only one expressing this opinion (read through this thread again). That I am outnumbered is of course irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a democracy. But given that I am outnumbered (and that Geni is far too prone to edit-warring for my taste) I will not add the material again until this plays out, even though it is reliably sourced. When I get a chance I'll initiate the RfC at which point I have complete confidence that the community will approach this issue reasonably and without a predetermined agenda. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. No rush, I know we are all busy in our real lives. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you intend to define and/or retitle the article? What separate article do you propose creating if necessary? What are the advantages of this solution? --Cherry blossom tree 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To whom is that question addressed? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Loonymonkey's comment at 22:28, 28 August 2008. --Cherry blossom tree 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Then for convenience in this long thing, here it is again:

• Right, of course we all have opinions but the problem is that you're attempting to determine the content of the article based solely on your personal opinion. That's not how wikipedia works. We rely on reliable sources not original research. As for splitting the article into two, that is one solution although it would seem much easier and more user-friendly to simply define this article (and/or retitle it) so that we can specify what is included and what isn't (without a small cabal of regulars editors unilaterally claiming to own the article). Then, if necessary, we can create a separate article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To this, another editor asks:

• In what way do you intend to define and/or retitle the article? What separate article do you propose creating if necessary? What are the advantages of this solution? --Cherry blossom tree 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps make progress. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to define anything. That's my point. Nobody should be deciding this for themselves. The problem that exists right now is that there is no definition in this article, but a couple of users are unilaterally deciding for themselves what constitutes "banned" and imposing their personal definition on others. So it either needs to be defined (by the community, not by a couple of individuals) or we need to follow standard Wikipedia practice and rely on reliable sources to indicate which books have been banned. Right now, we have neither of those. Given that there isn't a definition in place, we should be going the reliable source route, but unfortunately, any attempts to do so are edit-warred down by the owners of the article. That's why we need an RfC to let the cooler heads of the community prevail. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In your previous response you said "it would seem much easier and more user-friendly to simply define this article (and/or retitle it) [...] Then, if necessary, we can create a separate article." How do you see this process unfolding? What do you envisage will be the end product? --Cherry blossom tree 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've already explained a couple of times, we need an WP:RfC process to decide whether the article should define the parameters for what can and cannot be consider "banned." If it is determined that there should be such a definition, then obviously, it will need to be defined. If it is determined that it should not be defined, then we need to reaffirm that we are relying on reliable sources (and not personal opinion) to indicate which books have been banned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of decisions are made on talk pages every day. Why do you think a Request for Comment is required in this case? What problem do you have with organising the topic in such a way that it is obvious which books have been banned in what sense? --Cherry blossom tree 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is needed for the reason of ownership that I've described above and because of the fact that it shouldn't be decided arbitrarily by two or three editors. Further, the tendency of Geni to engage in revert wars while discussion continues, the circular nature of the argument in this thread and the generally poisonous atmosphere mean that consensus is unlikely to be achieved without the involvement of the community. As for the second part, what sort of organization are you suggesting? I would certainly support giving more information as to which books have been banned and in what sense, but I doubt that certain editors will accept anything less than expunging all books from this list which were not banned at the national level. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the talk page is not an adequate forum, but I don't really care either so I'll leave that. I haven't seen anyone argue that all mention of books being challenged/banned from school libraries should be removed from Wikipedia. I have repeatedly stated that it's a worthwhile topic and no-one has yet contradicted me on this. What I do think is worthwhile, however, is splitting these from books whose publication/possession has been forbidden. We can do better than mixing different situations in one list. The obvious way to achieve this seems to be to have two separate lists (ideally with a prose page addressing the general concepts) but I'm not particularly attached to this solution. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. --Cherry blossom tree 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::By the way, I see that you joined this discussion after LegitimateAndEvenCompelling improperly canvassed you and a few other like-minded editors to achieve support here (see [13] [14] [15]). I do not discount your opinions, but I also do not want uninvolved editors to mistake LaEC's bad-faith actions for a sort of consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me or anything I've written here, but I'm sure you also noticed that I have been an active participant on this talk page and would have joined this discussion anyway. --Cherry blossom tree 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Cherry blossom) Yes, I realize it has nothing to do with you. As I said, I don't discount your opinions in this matter and don't mean to imply meatpuppetry or any such nonsense. You clearly have been independently involved in this page for some time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, here's where you go off the deep end and make for a very unenjoyable experience. You go and attack me again, and for no good reason other than I suppose it makes you feel better. You say, "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling improperly canvassed you and a few other like-minded editors to achieve support here." That is a very confrontational statement that is not grounded in reality. In reality, the "Challenged books" section was dated and appeared much higher up in the talk page. Thinking newer info goes at the end of the article, I created "Challenged books 2." Out of mere common courtesy, I advised any user name I found in the older section that a newer section had been recreated. I advised no one else. That mere common courtesy under the circumstances is turned on its head by you, Loonymonkey, who claims that my actions were "improper" or that I "canvassed" people, or that I did so to "a few other like-minded editors to achieve support here." You are playing dirty pool, Loonymonkey, and I am inclined to drop editing this page precisely because your personal attacks are unceasing.

Loonymonkey then twists the knife in deeper by talking about "LaEC's bad-faith actions." This is a most uncomfortable editing experience as you, Loonymonkey, turn from person to person and personally attack them and make totally false claims. You called my good faith efforts to revive an old conversation under another talk section I newly created "bad faith" and accuse me of improperly canvassing like-minded people. Absolutely none of that is true. I fail to see how it is you go on, despite repeated comments to the contrary, and personally attack person after person with false claims and accusations that are sometimes totally divorced from reality. I'm beginning to wonder if there is some method of containing Loonymonkey's persistent personal attacks followed by claims that they are not personal.

Back to the issues, "rely[ing] on reliable sources to indicate which books have been banned" is not acceptable where those sources have a pecuniary or political interest in changing the meaning of the word "banned" by consistently using it in a manner not supported elsewhere or previous to those interests. As I said, removing "The Lorax" from a library does not mean the book is banned, except where saying it is banned drives up sales or promotes a political point of view, either of which is not what wikipedia is here to support. That's not my definition or original research--that's just obvious. The earth is round is not my definition or original research--it's just obvious. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not attacked you personally, I was commenting on your actions. And yes, they were a violation of Wikipedia's behavioral rules concerning canvassing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you may be unfamiliar with it, but inviting those who have previously agreed with you in a discussion to join in a new discussion is the very definition of canvassing (in particular, read the vote stacking section). As for the rest, I don't feel the need to go another round in this circular argument and point out once again that that is your opinion and not supported by objective fact or reliable sources. Saying "it's obvious" doesn't change that fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I just read the canvassing article. "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion...." What did I write to them? "I am reraising an issue on challenged books not belonging on the banned books page. See here. Thanks." Can anyone tell me here how more "neutrally worded" that could have been? Can anyone tell me how more "friendly" I could have been? Does anyone see here that I "canvassed" even in the slightest even considering the other criteria?

Am I allow to ask Loonymonkey for an apology and a withdrawal of claims regarding my "bad-faith," my "canvassing," etc., etc. Shouldn't he apologize to Geni for those really nasty statements where Loonymonkey gloats over Geni's admin efforts? Ditto for other people too? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, read the section on votestacking. "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." By only notifying editors that had previously agreed with you (and, most importantly, not notifying the multiple editors on this page that have previously disagreed with you) you violated this rule. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, I only notified those listed in that section, all of them, and only them, and all as allowed under the canvassing policy. Did I miss someone? I don't know. But I did not "select" only some. I wrote to everyone who happened to be there just to be fair, at least so I recall.

Since this is the third time you continue to drive the issue, I really demand an apology at this point, unless that violates some policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to continue this discussion, but what section are you referring to? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but reading through this discussion page I don't see any section in which only those who agree with your position are involved (and this topic extends throughout many sections with quite a bit of disagreement). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The section called "Challenged books." It was old. It was near the middle of the talk page. It's a long talk page. I wanted to make new comments in that section. I thought it was too old and too high up to the page to add new material to that section. Therefore I created a second section at the bottom of the page. I called "Challenged books 2". The first thing I said in that section was, "This is essentially a continuation of the 'Challenged books' section above, but that was years ago so I am adding it as a new section at the current bottom of this talk page." So I was really clear as to why I created the new section. Only 4 people ever commented in that section. I only contacted 3 of them, and all with a neutral message as required by wiki policy. Mind you, I was not aware of wiki policy with regard to "canvassing" at that time, but just by being fair and open, I did exactly as the policy allows. Now indeed I did not contact a 4th person who was the only one opposed to my position. Why? I was totally transparent about that as well. I said, "Further, I see the only person opposing this argument years ago (Larry Fafarman) was himself banned from editing Wikipedia because of his abuse of Wiki policy." Therefore, it was impossible for me to contact him, and impossible for me to violate the canvassing policy. Reasonably, I only contacted those names in that old section, and not every other section in this long talk page as well. I could have to stir up trouble, but that was not on my mind, I didn't, and I doubt anyone would expect me too. So in that old section 3 agreed with me and I contacted them with a neutral message, one did not agree with me but he was banned permanently and I could not possibly contact him though I tried.

Based on your saying, "Perhaps I'm mistaken," meaning you think you may be mistaken, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just overreacted. Being that's the case, I withdraw my demand for an apology. I hope this has been a lesson for you as your mistaken beliefs built up again and again into really inappropriate statements like the one where you said I acted in bad faith.

Further, I hope this disagreeable matter can be set aside and we and others can concentrate on the actual work, free from personal accusations, needed to build an excellent wiki page. Let's together apply wiki policy that does not promote efforts to redefine banning to include every little time some school removes an educationally unsuitable book, like, silly as this may be, "The Lorax" by Dr. Suess.

Is this acceptable? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, reading through the entire thing, I see what happened. I did not notice that the opposing editor in that one particular discussion had long since been banned for unrelated reasons and I missed the part above where you mentioned it. Thus, you were not canvassing (which would have been bad faith) and thus, I was mistaken when I said you were acting in bad faith. For that, I apologize. I will strike my comments above, and we can get back to the actual discussion of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, thank you. Back to the issues. Imagine if banned books were defined to mean any material whatsoever any school anywhere removed from the school for reasons of educational unsuitability. That would mean thousands of different materials would be "banned." It would mean this page would be huge. It would make this page totally meaningless. Worse, books truly banned would be nearly impossible to pick out from the thousands of books called "banned" by the media and by the American Library Association.

Now let's address the American Library Association directly. I am not writing about it here to promote me, myself, or I, or OR, or soapbox, or anything else. I am writing about it because it must be addressed. Why? The American Library Association is the creator and leading organization counting "banned" books nationwide [16] and running for years an advocacy campaign called "Banned Books Week." Indeed its lists are considered authoritative on this page precisely for that reason. It promotes the view that books removed from schools for reason of educational unsuitability are "banned," and it tells people to read "banned" books. Part of this is to get people interested in reading, a laudable goal, but another part of this is to make it so people think it is censorship to keep children from reading inappropriate material. You see, the American Library Association holds in its Library Bill of Rights that it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from any material whatsoever. In furtherance of that goal, materials legally and appropriately removed from schools are labeled as "banned" so that those who are only doing what everyone knows is right are instead labeled as "censors" and are intimidated from keeping inappropriate materials from children, thereby effectuating the American Library Association's goal. And in effectuating that goal, the American Library Association advises its members on how to get the media to essentially promulgate the American Library Association's view on this topic. I have even seen a librarian do a cut and paste job from an American Library Association suggested letter to the media while not disclosing on the media that she was a librarian, and she had disclosed that in previous letters she wrote. But that my observation. Just look around. Search on Banned Books Week. See how basically the exact same ideas appear in hundreds of papers across the nation, not because they are true, but because the American Library Association has an entire office devoted to ensuring such articles use the American Library Association point of view and that they are spread as far and wide as possible. Well, this is approaching "the big lie" land. In reality, if a school chooses not to use Looking For Alaska because it contains oral sex, that is a proper educational decision (it should be up to individual communities), not book "banning." Worse, the American Library Association gave that book with the oral sex the best book of the year award in 2006 for kids 12 and up. So communities not only grapple with this, but they are essentially forced to grapple with it since the American Library Association lists and awards are so influential. But such an organization promoting its agenda does not mean we have to go along with it. Since the last book banned in the USA was many decades ago, any book now claimed to be "banned" by the ALA is simply not banned and should not be listed on this page. Now it may a significant thing that books are removed from public schools, but they are not banned and should not appear on a banned books page with books that were or are truly banned. They should appear elsewhere, if at all, given that anyone using common sense would keep children from reading inappropriate material (but for the pressure from the American Library Association). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because most of those bannings would not be notable. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Example of selection--not book banning

Here is an example of selection, not book banning. I am added this as it is a perfect (and recent) example of the exact type of book that does NOT belong on this list of banned books page:

Explicit Book Pulled From Middle School Library in Marietta

MARIETTA, Okla. -- A Love County parent is outraged after her young daughter brings home a book so graphic, we can't even repeat some of the dialogue on television.

Parents are usually proud when their youngsters take the initiative to read a book, but when Kathy Davis' daughter brought home a novel she checked out from her middle school library, both mother and daughter, were shocked by what was inside.

"this is great mommy!"

Graphic descriptions of oral sex are detailed in passages discussing recreational drug use. What is even more shocking -- a question in class about how many calories a tablespoon of a certain bodily fluid contains, all in the pages of a book, aimed at young adults.

"It’s, it's awful... It's... I can't believe... I don't talk about that in front of my child -- and I don't expect it to be in a book that she can get from the library. I mean it's just... I'm speechless."

Kathy Davis was shocked when she saw what her 13-year-old daughter was reading. Innocent looking enough from the outside, the neon green cover is eye-catching, but the words on the pages inside reveal some very adult discussions.

"It’s nasty -- it's soft porn. As far as I have read -- if it was a movie, she couldn't go see it."

The book -- "TTFN" -- came from the Marietta Middle School library, and what's more -- it was on an advanced reading list worth eight points to any student who checks it out and reads it.

The book is recommended for older students, grades ten through twelve, and is written in "instant message" style, depicting online conversations between three fictional eleventh grade girls.

"She read page 32 to me and that was the end of the book. I took it away from my daughter and I can't believe they have these things, this type of reading in a middle school," Kathy Davis said.

That book, which does contain crude references to fellatio and other sexually explicit innuendo, has now been pulled from the shelves here at Marietta Middle School.

As far as how that book got there in the first place, and ended up on a recommended reading list, we don't know. School administrators refused on camera interview, saying only the book is "no longer available".

Ms. Davis she says this should serve as a warning to all parents to know what your child is reading.

END OF STORY --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of challenged books already exists

Look, all. I just found this List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooljeanus just made a fantastic edit that solves the controversy on this talk page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my intent. I'm surprised no one else had thought of it yet... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Should a corresponding message be added on the challenged page? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a general list of commonly challenged books. It's a list of books commonly challenged in America, Wikipedia has no general list of challenged books. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Then create one. Better yet, make the US list a general one. Is wikipedia supposed to have one for each country? And I would have preferred you left up Cooljeanius's change for discussion instead of just summarily cutting it out. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451

Fahrenheit 451 is a banned book that is not on the list. The book is by Ray Bradbury. It was banned for offensive language, and issues regarding censorship mentioned in the book. Could someone please add this book, because I am not extremely familiar with the format yet, and I am afraid that I will make a mistake and not know how to fix it. The Beatles Fan (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In which country was it banned?Geni 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A link was added for the book's "banning" in the USA. It was "banned" in a public school. Since that does not meet the definition of a banned book, I removed it from the list of banned books. It may belong on a list of challenged books and may already be there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you back up your claim regarding "the definition of a banned book" with a reliable source? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: "The Online Books Page Presents BANNED BOOKS ONLINE," edited by John Mark Ockerbloom, University of Pennsylvania, undated.

One section is entitled, "Books Suppressed or Censored by Legal Authorities." Those are akin to the banned books listed here. Another section is "Unfit for Schools and Minors?" Those are akin to the challenged books listed on a separate page for challenged books.

The experts at the University of Pennsylvania have separated banned books from challenged books. I view UPenn as a reliable source, especially in light of what that source says on the page cited. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. You're completely misreading that page. In fact that page contradicts your stated position. They place both of those categories under the header "Banned Books." According to this reliable source, both are subcategories within a list of banned books. And no, they do not separate "banned from challenged books" as you claim. They group books as being "Suppressed or Censored by Legal Authorities" and "Unfit for Schools and Minors?" within this list of banned books (the latter used to categorize the rational for banning as in Origin of the Species which was also "suppressed by authorities" but allegedly to protect children.) See the top of the page. Not only does everything fall under the header "Banned Books" but in the intro they say "The books featured here, ranging from Ulysses to Little Red Riding Hood, have been selected..." You're really going to argue that they included a book they don't actually consider banned in the intro to their banned books list?

Also, they don't use the word "challenged" in the same way that you do, that is drawing an arbitrary distinction between books banned at the national level and banned at the local or school school districe level. Rather, they use the term in its obvious way which is to say a book that someone attempted to ban (thus challenging it).

Once again, this made-up definition that you and Geni have imposed on this page is unsupported (in fact contradicted) by reliable sources. It is still my intention to initiate an RfC, as it seems to be the only way to break this ownership deadlock. At the moment, I have far more media and election-related pages in my watchlist than I have time so it will probably have to wait a few weeks before I can get to it, but someone else is welcome to have a go at it. I have complete faith that the larger Wikipedia community and the books project will not agree that personal opinions should determine the content of this page. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey said, "this made-up definition that you and Geni have imposed on this page...." Really, that is not very friendly. That is not polite. It is not working with the community. I provided just one reference and Loonymonkey decided to attack two people with one shot.

I have other sources for that which Gordon Ecker requested. One is Grannis, Chandler B.; Haight, Anne (Lyon) (1978). "Banned Books, 387 B. C. to 1978 A. D." New York: R. R. Bowker, 80. ISBN 0-8352-1078-2. I received the following from info@carnegielibrary.org:

Hello ..., from what I am able to determine the last book banned in the USA was Fanny Hill by John Cleland. On March 21, 1966 the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the ban on Fanny Hill. I'm defining banned here as a suppression by the government. Following is a quote from an opening essay (by Charles Rembar) "Censorship in America: The Legal Picture"on page xi of the book, Banned Books 387 B. C. to 1978 A. D. , 4th ed.. ;

"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....In the past , book banning has happened in two ways. Books have been censored at the start and never seen the light of print....Or their publication or sale or transportation has been made a crime, so that their distribution is perilous and their reading generally sneaky. This was the method in England from 1720 on, and in this country from early in the nineteenth century until 1966."

Sincerely,

Reference Services, CLP

I have ordered this book from my own library to see for myself and perhaps report more here.

I am certain Loonymonkey will be shown to not only be acting against wiki policies on working cooperatively, but also just plain factually wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for dramatics. Labeling my comments as an "attack" while grandstanding about politeness doesn't accomplish anything. That said, please go back and read Wikipedia's policies on original research again. Your own private email correspondence regarding the opinion of some reference librarian somewhere is irrelevant to this article and cannot possibly be considered a reliable source. The fact is, we have a reliable source (provided by you) that says pretty clearly that many of the books you've been trying to keep out of this article are, in fact, banned. Given what you said about this reliable source in your comments above, can we agree that all the books on that list belong in this article? If not, why? --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey continues to misstate what I have said, then pass off my response to his/her persistent personal attacks as "dramatics." Actually, this is not the first time Loonymonkey has aimed his guns at wiki editors instead of the subject matter at hand. The last time s/he attacked me repeatedly s/he ended up retracting a lot of the false statements. Just see all the strikeouts in sections above.

I never said my original research is worth anything. Instead, I reprinted information from a reliable source at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburg (which I suppose Loonymonkey does not see as reliable, perhaps because of his/her bias against me personally, since s/he says, "some reference librarian somewhere"), then I said I was ordering the source that the reliable source referenced so that I may evaluate it for possible inclusion as a reliable source in this article. I even stated the name of the reliable source so others can go take a look for themselves. It's not on the Internet, so you have to actually order and read the book.

Is there someone who can properly guide Loonymonkey on Wikipedia etiquette and simple human decency? Can we all just concentrate on the issues instead of the people? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you not see any irony in your first and last paragraph? For someone complaining about personal attacks you sure spend a lot of your time talking about me, and not so much time talking about this article or how to improve it. There's an old Yiddish proverb that says, "when you point one finger at others, you're pointing three at yourself." But back to the issue at hand, no, email correspondence between you and a reference librarian is not a reliable source. The "ask a librarian" form on a library website is not a reliable source. In fact we don't even get to the WP:RS argument because it stops dead at WP:VERIFIABILITY. We don't know what questions you asked and we have no way to verify the answers you received (even if such answers could be considered a reliable source, which I doubt anyone on the RS/Noticeboard would support). Also, you didn't actually address any of my points or answer my question so I'll ask it again. Given what you said about the UPenn source in your comments above, can we agree that all the books on that list belong in this article? If not, why? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The list separated books banned by governments from books challenged in schools or "Unfit for Schools and Minors." Books "banned" by schools already have a list of their own here--it's the list of challenged books. To put challenged books on a list of challenged books and on a list of banned books may promote some POV, but it would not be the right or the factually correct thing to do.

In Cuba right now librarians are being beaten and jailed and books like by Martin Luther King are being burned. That's book banning. A school keeping out Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax" because it shows the countryside being denuded is not. To equate the two makes a mockery of true efforts to oppose true censorship. Dr. Seuss belongs on the challenged books list, and Martin Luther King belongs on the banned books list.

The rest of what you said is false, misleading, or based on political bias. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh, again with the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. As an experienced editor, you should be aware that using wannabe_kate tools to attack the motives of another editor is strictly forbidden. I would suggest you strike that last sentence. Anyway, I'm just going to ignore the attacks and respond only to the issue at hand. The list is a list of banned books. They have not separated out the categories into "banned" and "not banned but challenged in schools" as you seem to be claiming. The entire list is a list of banned books (as is pretty clear from the intro). You're trying to read qualifiers into this list that they have not said themselves. If you disagree, please cite specific language on that website where they say that books banned in schools are not actually banned. Otherwise, we can go ahead and include everything on the list (and we'll assume you have no WP:RS objections to the source, obviously). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not made an "assumption" of bad faith. On this very talk page, you acted in bad faith in the past and withdrew your comments. Oh, they have strikeouts through them, but they are all still here to see. It's gone past "assumption." As to wannabe_kate, her tool showed me your editing patterns. That was like a light bulb going off in my head as to why you are persistently hostile to me personally, and Geni, and others, and anyone who disagrees with you, and why you persistently ignore wiki rules regarding etiquette and decorum. Actually, I'm starting to become fearful of your personal attacks on me again and again. You, Loonymonkey, only you behave as you do and are responsible for what you do. I disagree with plenty of people but they have not been so personal and so disagreeable as you. You have already committed acts of bad faith, have corrected them, then pick up where you left of as if your prior corrective actions had absolutely no effect. I had actually forgotten already about your previous attacks against me and how they were proven wrong and how you retracted them. Then, in the middle of this latest attack by you, I say to myself, oh my, its her/him again, s/he's at it again. Well I have reached my limit. I will not respond to you further if it has even a hint of another personal attack and/or mischaracterization of me personally. Issues only, fine. Me personally anywhere in the post, I'm not going to respond to you. Starting now. However, I will respond to the community if a need arises to yet again successfully defend myself from yet another false and misleading statement you persist in making. I suggest you just drop your further attacks against me, Geni, and all other editors on this and other pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So nothing about the article or my points concerning the article? Just a long, ranting attack against me? This is getting ridiculous. This really isn't the place for this, but I feel I need to respond very briefly. I have not acted in bad faith, now or previously. Once, some months ago, I mistakenly thought that you were improperly canvassing (as the evidence seemed to indicate it.) I later realized that was not the case, that I was mistaken. Thus, I publicly admitted my error, apologized, and struck my comments. That is the one true act of contrition that exists on Wikipedia. Clearly though, you are unable to get past your grudge with me as even the most casual comments concerning the article (remember that? the ostensible subject of this page?) are met with vicious personal attacks. Anyway, back to the article, since you have no objections, I'll assume it's okay to add the items from the list on the reliable source which you have provided. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mortal Storm

Perhaps The Mortal Storm should be included. And the movie of it includes footage of Nazi book burnings, if I read this right. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Very hungry Caterpillar

Hi The 'Very hungry caterpillar' entry looks bogus to me - does anyone have a source? I've found about 10 citations on the internet, but they all copy each other's language (ie I think they're all from one source), and, crucially as the ban is supposed to have happened in the UK, all of them are from the US. I could find no mention of the ban on the BBC website, nor in the Lexis-Nexis database which searches all the UK broadsheets and tabloids. As this is the sort of story the tabloids love, I'm sure they would have picked up on it. Any views? Ozwaldowl (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that is a banned book makes a mockery of book banning, since you asked. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([17]). 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)

Yes, I agree, as the page is specific to governments. Dabrowskia (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned books in India

I've recently added a book (Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India) that was banned by a state in India in April 2011. After researching this particular book I've noticed that banned books in India is quite an under-represented section on this page. I've compiled a preliminary list of books that may be added:

The Price of Power by Seymour Hersh; Such a Long Journey by Rohinton Mistry; Riddles of Hinduism by Bhimrao Ambedkar; The Ramayana as told by Aubrey Menen; Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India by James Laine; Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings by Paul Courtright; Jinnah: India Partition Independence by Jaswant Singh; Mother India by Katherine Mayo; Nehru: A Political Biography by Michael Edwardes; The Lotus and the Robot by Arthur Koestler; Rangila Rasool; Polyester Prince by Hamish McDonald; Dwikhondito (Split in Two, Bengali) by Taslima Nasreen

Perhaps more research can be done in this area and on these titles specifically before they are added. Also, the entry for Lady Chatterley's Lover is missing India in the list of countries that have banned this book. I believe it was banned in 1964 but a citation is needed.Bigelowa (talk) 19:06, 24 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)

Hey all, I'm going to go in and make the Canada list alphabetical. Just makes it a bit easier to read quickly! ÉtoileDeMer (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added the Germany and United States of America lists, in alphabetical order inside the list as well as by country. I think it looks very good, having these lists! Sandréna (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust Revisionism

Holocaust revisionism is illegal in large parts of Europe, but it appears this list is missing many such works. Holocaust revisionist sources have indicated that books like Carlos Porter's Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case & Germar Rudolf's Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte: Ein Handbuch über strittige Fragen des 20. Jahrhunderts (Foundations of Contemporary History: A Handbook on controversial questions of the Twentieth century) have been banned in Germany. I suspect that most Wikipedians wouldn't accept revisionist websites and publications legitimate sources and outside revisionist circles this doesn't get much attention in the English speaking world so I don't have any acceptable sources to cite. I'd bet that these incidents got more attention in the mainstream German press, so a multi-lingual Wikipedian might better be able to track some mainstream sources down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bloggz (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As a banned book then it would of course be relevant to include it on the list. The website you mention is indeed not to be considered a reliable secondary source, so we need other sources for this. A good place to start would be the German Wikipedia article on Germar Rudolf, which seems relatively wellsourced. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bible

It appears that some idiot from Reddit removed the Bible after a recent post there. Can someone replace it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.89.181 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Before the post on Reddit there was no citation for the claim "Banned, dejure or defacto, in dozens of countries, both historically and in the current era. The most banned book in history." As far as I can tell, it has been removed because no reliable citation can be found. DesireCampbell (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have begun documenting places where the Bible is banned. It is the most banned book in history.Pete unseth (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. But please remember that the article is called "List of books banned by governments", so only mention instances of government instituted bans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bible incident on the Medical Center is not notable, since and was not an actual ban but a careless written sentence in a memo, and it was never in effect and overturned as soon as it was discovered. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

Please, whenever using a source to verify a claim, keep in mind WP:NOR

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueaster (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs single standard for current/past bannings

Some sections differentiate between currently banned and previously banned books while others do not. Few (if any) of the books listed for the United States are currently banned. Additionally, its debatable whether a book being seized at one time as obscene (as is the case with Candide)is the same thing as being banned. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

--Agreed. According to the "banned" definition on Wikipedia, the books should be prohibited. As Candide as well as Catch-22 are currently for sale by American book company Barnes and Noble, with shipping to all states, I don't feel they are banned in the current age. I also agree with that one seizure does not qualify as a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 April 2012 (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)

As far as I'm aware, every country classifies information. I wouldn't call the daily memos circulated by the DGSE, MI5, the Mossad, or the CIA "banned." For example one of the articles you listed is titled "UK Keeps Three Times as Many Patents Secret as the US." In addition there are several books listed as banned by the United States, so I'm not sure where you got pro-US bias. For example, Candide, the Canturberry Tales, Catch-22, and the Decameron are all listed within the first four letters of the alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A little more explanation needed for some of these...

For example, I'd like to know HOW Green Eggs & Ham promotes Marxism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Source doesn't confirm words

"It is a popular misconception that it was banned in South Africa during the apartheid era for having the word "black" in its title."

The source says it *did* happen. The source should say it is a popular "misconception." Is there a reference missing? --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Madame Bovary

Flaubert, the book's author, was acquitted immediately after being brought to trial for obscenity. The trial only lasted one day. As far as I understand, it was never "banned" in any way; at least, not in France, as stated. There are countless print sources that confirm this (I am a nineteenth-century French literature scholar), but a quick search online that I did brought up these easy-to-follow links of different types of sources that confirm this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JYxrxuglB5QC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=madame+bovary+acquitted&source=bl&ots=yeY15J3q-B&sig=G-kWEqTtaDX2cunhtpQtFUPNUjk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J18YUPCPAe-K6gG0vICgAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20acquitted&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WEhcN4SMVRgC&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=madame+bovary+acquitted&source=bl&ots=SyC15CjQ-y&sig=esVq5iMPhMAWTf8RMu2egCbKtsA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t2AYUO_lD4am6AHo8ICwAg&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20acquitted&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TFlUmBzv-N0C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=madame+bovary+acquitted&source=bl&ots=-O95QmrfxV&sig=NObIZ35a0LgMDKJonBUl9IZXfZs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t2AYUO_lD4am6AHo8ICwAg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20acquitted&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=h7bZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR29&lpg=PR29&dq=madame+bovary+acquitted&source=bl&ots=PErVtiVnRD&sig=c1SFqLRmIMtDehX-Z4cHt0D_0fc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t2AYUO_lD4am6AHo8ICwAg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20acquitted&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YqUbrdPl4QMC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=madame+bovary+acquitted&source=bl&ots=luQUJXndu6&sig=LdbEGXr6dKVCZw-PeeWFeak_Kag&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t2AYUO_lD4am6AHo8ICwAg&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20acquitted&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=7FiCXPiUN_0C&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=madame+bovary+trial&source=bl&ots=dUvedxpaaL&sig=F5gqItdjzLNwguWKQm-CSL1-80U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_2EYUKq5EKqm6gGKtoH4Bw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=madame%20bovary%20trial&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcwing (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four

It currently says that Nineteen Eighty-Four was "banned by the Soviet Union in 1950, as Stalin understood that it was a satire based on his leadership." This fact should be reviewed. Sometimes people confuse Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. Animal Farm was a satire on communism, and the leader of the Animal Farm, Napoleon, was a caricature of Stalin.

Gregorymmccoy (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)gregorymmccoy 18 June 2012 Gregorymmccoy (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The bit you are missing is that both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm were critiques of Stalinism. HairyWombat 19:57, 25 December 2012 (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 [http://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-C-066-William-Powell/dp/0962303208] 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/ [[18]] —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 [[19]]. "RC" is "Refused Classification", which means "banned" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

under strict attorney general rules RC meanign refused classification only means it can not be sold in Australia. you can still import a RC game/film/book without issue. banend means it is not allowed in the country at all.152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone feel like writing up a separate article for pre-modern book bans?

Does anyone feel like writing up a separate article for older book bans? The Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance seem like good aribtrary cutoff points. Wikipedia's list of book burning incidents lists numerous incidents of book prohibitions by various governments, including the burning of books and burying of scholars in Qin China, the banning of Arabic-language writing in post-Reconquista spain, and the prohibition of 60 specific books in Cromwell-era England. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)