Talk:Literary redaction

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Writing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 5 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Redaction to ?. The result of the discussion was moved.

Links to articles in non-english wikipedias are wrong

There is something wrong with the language links. Several of the entries (at least the german, danish, norwegian and swedish) are on the subject of newsrooms/editors. In the scandinavian languages they are called “redaktioner” and while editors “redact” the news in the old sense of the word, it is clearly wrong to link between the word "redact" and “redaktion”. Could someone please check if any of the entries in other languages are misplaced as well before reordering the entries?90.184.255.144 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations and Anthologies

If an editor collects a series of short stories by varying authors with a similar theme, and collects them into a compilation or anthology and adds some introductions and editor's notes, is this considered redaction? 209.212.22.30 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-related redaction

Note that the sanitization entry already contains much of this information. Rick Smith 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, please?

I haven't been able to find any source defining 'redaction' so narrowly as it is here. The definitions I can find say that 'to redact' means 'to edit' or 'to prepare for publication'. This would include merging two or more primary sources, as is described in the article, but it wouldn't exclude other edits. A source would be helpful. In addition, a few sources to support the existence of, or examples of, redactions that have been made to make the material fit the editor's opinion would be helpful. -- Super Aardvark 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redaction

legal sense

in the legal sense [USA], documents are treated by redaction by blocking out or obliterating from visibility - as with a black marker, the text of items or parts that should be kept out of evidence in a case. Such documents are said to be "redacted" in preparation for submission into evidence in the case.

Is this really a "legal sense", or a US government euphemism for censorship? When was redacted first used to mean censor, or at least delete parts (that the editor didn't want released), rather than edit?JohnC (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever heard this word used by this definition, as censored documents. This article seems to completely ignore this definition. Webster's online dictionary also only uses the censored material definition.Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition here is correct. To redact is to edit. The American regime however misuses "Redacted" as a euphemism for censorship. Quite different!

Still a stub?

Is it really still just a stub? It looks a lot better than most stubs!

21 Apr 06, dcpleland.

Rédaction

Redaction technique (Rédaction technique) is French for technical writing. Zutmince 08:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To redact

The Irish company Rédacteurs define the term 'redact' on their website as 'Redact: To collect source material, to put it together in writing, to edit it, to prepare and arrange it for publication.' See www.redact.ie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.76.5 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're doing it wrong. I'm pretty sure redacting means censoring sensitive information. 136.176.104.93 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the US government misuses redact as a euphemism for state censorship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday usage

On a forum that I frequent, one poster wrote about needing to "empty 22 years of s*it out of my house". Another wondered why she needed to redact, referring to the insertion of the asterisk to mask the word. Is this a correct use of "redact"? If so, should mention be made in the article? 78.151.122.194 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African frog

The current version ( 16:42, 8 January 2009 ) contains the text "Is also the latin name for an East African frog that is now nearly extinct due to de-forestation. Please see The loss of African frogs by Kevin Miller BSC." I think this is (minor) vandalism. The closest I could find to this was "... [Traduit par la Rédaction]" in Effects of pH and dilution on African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) sperm motility Authors: Christensen J.R.; Pauli B.D.; Richardson J.S.; Bishop C.A.; Elliott J. Source: Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 82, Number 4, 1 April 2004 , pp. 555-563(9) Publisher: NRC Research Press at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nrc/cjz/2004/00000082/00000004/art00004;jsessionid=1ayfdtwm5qjnw.alexandra

(The French phrase translates as "Translated by the Editor." Hope this helps, Darci (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I undid that edit. Thanks for looking it up! Dreamyshade (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A second article?

The term "redaction" has (at least) two meanings that are quite distinct from each other. The first is the "compiling from multiple sources" idea, which this article was originally describing. The second is the more recent use closer in meaning to "censorship of a single source", familiar in the West from various political events.

This article tries to describe both these two quite different concepts. It is already confused. If further expansion takes place in either of these descriptions, this will only get worse. I propose, therefore, separating the censorship-related material into a separate article. The resulting two articles would, of course, cross-reference each other.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if we do separate out the second article, here's a potentially useful image from an earlier version of the article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found the article Sanitization (classified information) which seems to be what is needed. So I have referenced that in that hatnote and removed the "sanitization" descriptions from here. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redact which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]