Talk:Suppression of dissent

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles

Psychology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Yes this is a very crappy

Yes, this is a very crappy and problematic article which tries to convey a certain viewpoint as fact. Can someone put an alert box thing at the top that acknowledges the problems with this tripe? Sorry I don't know how to do it. I think this subject has a place as a separate article from censorship because the suppression of dissent involves a lot more than preventing information from being shared "for the greater good" which is what censorship is. It also involves attacking and trying to destroy or coerce the individuals that are dissenting, and applies to things that are in the grey area between action and expression like some types of protests often are. 70.30.16.243 (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

This article is more a personal essay drawing from a single flawed (marginally reliable) source and less an encyclopedic article. It contains far more opinion and spin than verifiable fact. I suggest merging the salvagable bits of this article with Censorship, since that is really what the topic at hand is once the spin has been stripped away. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge. You're too generous, this doesn't even qualify as an essay. Odd nature 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious objections to including the mass media as a source of censorship. Only governments carry the power to censor. In the United States, the First Amendment gives media the right to say what they want. The paragraph on Self-Censorship is biased and should be stricken immediately from this article. Llacara 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you call it when the mass media decides not to publish certain facts or opinions? Sounds like censorship to me. Censorship can basically be divided into 4 main branches. Political, being government censorship. Religious, by religious groups or organisations which consider a work to be blasphemous or unholy. Moral, censorship by a variety of groups for a variety of reasons but mainly based upon the assertion that the thing in question is morally indescent. And finally corporate censorship, a relatively new form of censorship but with the nature of capitalism its inevitable it would emerge. Basically its the suppression of information by payouts and coverups by corporations to avoid the damage of their corporate image.

It would appear to me that this article is generally in concern with political censorship and therefore if merged with anything should be merged with the political censorship article. --Lanklan 09:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought it was the most ironic thing (and quite fitting) to search "Censorship" and, first thing, find a proposal to merge it with Supression of dissent. It made me laugh. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Much of the 'Academia' section appears to be copied from the Peer review article. Alfons Åberg 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While censorship is a component of Suppression of dissent, it isn't the same. If people were arrested for there political beliefs, that would be a form of suppression of dissent, but at the same time, it can't be classified as censorship. There should be more built on this topic and time permitting, as many Wikipedia articles, there will be; but merging isn't a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuzzle (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a bad idea to merge, even though this article is weak and underdeveloped. Suppression of dissent includes many government activities, censorship is a minor one. Surveillance of citizens, kidnapping, torture, and execution being the most severe. This is a serious problem in some Latin American countries, Muslim countries, and China. It prevents people from publicly identifying with their expressed views. Thus I am not censored, because I am able to speak in this forum, but my dissent is suppressed because I cannot identify myself with my speech out of fear of increased government surveillance of my person that may result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.229.179 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merging the two articles. Censorship is but one aspect of suppression of dissent and, while related, the two concepts are not synonymous. Citing the problems that may exist with this article is not a reasonable argument for merger. These problems can be solved through careful editing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Censorship is one of many means to suppress the dissent.Biophys (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I just added Category:Censorship of science. I may have accidentally said I added Category:Criticism of science. I apologize. It was the latter.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this is a really badly-written article.

There are lots of issues with this article. For one, the majority of the sources cited are from one person, a professor at the University of Wollongong. This citation, however, isn't one from him, but it's extremely unreliable, as it links to a conspiracy theory website with articles on topics such as pole shifting, ancient aliens, and psychic powers.

In addition, as was said with multiple people on this talk page, this article looks and writes exactly like an essay that I would write in high school. Weasel words are extremely common, and vast swathes of information are uncited. In addition, it is heavily biased, and it seems to have been written to persuade rather than inform.

I've added an infobox on top of the article to bring more visibility to the article. I hope I did it right, and a more experienced editor can help to make this page much better. 75.173.47.110 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion

concerns = 0% attempt to attend to multiple issues over a number of years - neutrality, reliable sources, singular sources, etc. Gongwool (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongwool: That's not a valid reason for deletion. There are plenty of problems, but if nobody has done anything with them, that just means someone still has to. And that could be you. Make bold edits, propose solutions, do a more thorough review and post it to the talk page, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single source

I reviewed a two or three "cn" tags and found that these are coming from the same single source already cited in the article. This have led me to a suspicion that the rest is based on the same author. I have no interest in the subject to proceed any further, but it is quite possible that the rest of the text is based on the same author. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suppression of dissent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021129171821/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]