Talk:Political censorship

I have done a rewrite of material already introduced. Only four examples of censorship are shown, one specious (the UK -- copyright isn't censorship in itself), two defunct (Ceauşescu's Romania and Apartheid-era South Africa), and the most populous entity that now uses extensive censorship.

I notice that Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile, and Castro's Cuba, the military regime in Burma, and numerous others aren't mentioned.

I consider the attempt to bribe journalists, induce soft-ball or loaded questions at press conferences, or to create false stories tantamount to censorship because such activities at the least crowd out objective journalism on behalf of a government; Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan, and Jeff Gannon exemplify such efforts under George W. Bush even if they weren't successful. Jamming of foreign radio signals (a practice commonplace in the old Soviet Union) and prohibiting foreign newspapers not associated with sympathetic Communist Parties ensured a monopoly of news on behalf of the government.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CFR

Dr.enh, it is simply indisputable that CFR restricts speech, and you are simply being obstructionist in not accepting that. Furthermore, you are being hypocritical in not accepting an op-ed as a source, seeing as how your "reference" in the heterosexism page is clearly an editorial.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Simply indisputable" is not a reliable source. This is not a talk page about Heterosexism; please address Heterosexism on its own talk page. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it's a source. I said it's evidence of your bad faith. You can't claim that there is one standard on one page and another on another and then claim that you can't be challenged on your hypocrisy because "that's another page". If I were to bring up your hypocrisy on the Heterosexism page, I'm sure you would say "this isn't a talk page about Political censorship".Heqwm2 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deleting the CFR statement does not have relevant, reliable sources. Op-eds are not reliable sources; pending undecided court cases about CFR do not support the claim that CFR restricts political speech; restriction is not the same as censorship; and red tape is not the same as censorship. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think this shouldn't be here, find someone else to agree with you and make the case. You've clearly acting out of some sort of vendetta and are not interested in having a discussion and are not acting out a motivation to improve Wikipedia.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement "Campaign finance reform is a form of political censorship" is your opinion. While it may be true that others share this opinion with you, you still cannot state opinion as fact. There are plenty of articles where notable and relevant opinion or criticism is appropriate but simply stating an opinion as fact is blatantly non-neutral and has no place on wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, "campaign finance reform is a form of political censorship" is fact. Censorship is the restriction of speech. CFR restricts speech. What part of this do you not understand? By referring to facts that you do not like as "opinions", you are the one pushing POV. And I'm not even adding a claim that "campaign finance reform is a form of political censorship", I simply said that it restricts speech, a fact obvious to any non-delusional person. I asked Dr.enh to find someone to make a case against my edits, not to find someone to waste my time with ridiculous "arguments". What's next, are you going to claim that evolution is an "opinion"? Just because some people refuse to accept a plain truth, that doesn't make it a matter of "opinion". If someone makes a statement about a political issue, and, as a result, faces criminal prosecution, that is censorship. Period. Not "in my opinion". Not "according to some".Heqwm2 (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply saying "no it's not" doesn't change the fact that this is opinion, not fact. Many people say it is censorship, many others say it is not. The notion that donating money is a form of "speech" is certainly opinion. But most importantly, no third-party reliable source states this as fact. As for the rest of your argument, if you are not claiming that "campaign finance reform is a form of political censorship," then you are at the wrong article. Please see the title and lead of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And saying "yes, it is" doesn't make it an opinion. What part of "stop wasting my time" did you not understand? Whether people agree on something is irrelevant to whether it is a fact. I have already stated that. Why are you repeating absurd arguments that I have already refuted? As for "The notion that donating money is a form of "speech" is certainly opinion", that is simply a plain bullshit strawman. Whether SPEAKING ABOUT A CANDIDATE is speech is the issue, not whether DONATING MONEY is speech. Are you even bothering to think about what you're writing? You're just repeating leftist bullshit, dishonest talking points. And if you think that SPEAKING ABOUT A CANDIDATE is not speech, then you have no business editing.

Now, do you have an argument against my edits that is not complete bullshit?Heqwm2 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summaries are not for discussing edits. That is what the discussion page is for. Stop abusing edit summaries. Furthermore, quit putting lies in the edit summaries. I have discussed this on the talk page. You have presented bullshit after bullshit and called it a discussion. Now, do you, or do you not, have any argument against my edits that is not complete bullshit?Heqwm2 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Internet Police

I have seen sites that prove and show internet policing in China, but most say it was a myth. I deleted that line until a reliable citation can be made that shows proof of them, if there is. I have also found that some sources talk about them, but don't mention searching Google, or that there's specifically 30,000 of them.
Ora Stendar 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Improvements

I've done a little rewording but I suspect this article is likely to be a magnet for people looking to grind an axe going forward, and is generally in need of a serious rework. A few issues I've identified:

• There seems to be an imbalance in the weight given to various sections, this is likely driven by the article's contribution history as people comment only on specific instances of censorship.
• There does not seem to be a great deal of reference to academic literature.
• The "Overview" section is more of a list of "times censorship happened", and probably needs a substantial rewrite to provide context and additional sourcing.
• Given how contentious the subject matter is, it's likely to attract a lot of POV contributions - but this means that the sourcing needs to be double checked. I'm currently unable to properly verify a few sources due to language barriers so if someone else could take a look that would be fantastic. :)

I don't know whether or not I'm going to be able to spare the time to address most of these properly, but I thought enumerating them might be useful for other editors. 88.109.74.210 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Related, the sentence "Studies show these two channels have been a disinformation tool at the discretion of the Kremlin for years" is in dire need of additional direct citations, if anyone can provide them. 88.109.74.210 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)