Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedians for censorship/decency

If I disagree with you policies, is there a project name Wikipedians for Censorship I could maybe join. I believe that the Wikipedia should be censored for minors and if you disagree with me, I would be more than happy to join the debate.

Please leave comments on [my talk page | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freedom_to_share]. Freedom to share 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On Censorship

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I ask all, how is the world to know what the world is really about if we sugar-coat it?

• Everyone will be offended at some point, seeing that these articles are printed in so many languages.
• If a picture is relevant, it deserves to be on that page! I don't care if it's ography, if it's relevant them put it on!
• We fight for facts, not just politically correct ideas, everyone.

--Raystlyn 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Username censorship

Does WP:RFCN constitute censorship? One username named "tortureiswrong" was almost prohibited. Wooyi 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It constitutes a form of censorship, but it's also in part a security measure and doesn't really violate the speech of the actual encyclopedia. That said, I'd keep and eye on it for absurd nominations like "tortureiswrong" and respond accordingly. Gateman1997 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will also report here if any such absurd nom appear there. Wooyi 04:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this into the "I disagree so opposing opinions are censorship" noticeboard? -Amarkov moo! 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is advocating that. However certain noms on that page could and do constitute censorship. ToutureisWrong appears to have been WP:POINT violation so it's a valid thing to bring here in my opinion. Gateman1997 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an absurd nomination today Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Pothead12345, but ended up in allow. Wooyi 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the worst part of that nomination was someone mentioning the "12345" having no significance, as if that held any real weight in forcing someone to change their name or simply deleting them. It is a bit ridiculous. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of information about Jewish businesspeople

I'd like to let everyone know that there is a massive censorship campaign underway dealing with information about Jewish businesspeople. Category:Jewish American businesspeople was the first to go, and then List of Jewish American businesspeople (take a look at the page's history). Now Category:Jewish businesspeople will soon be deleted. Note that these categories/articles are unjustly targeted for deletion despite the fact that dozens if not hundreds of very similar categories/articles currently exist on Wikipedia. --Wassermann 09:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that there ever was a Category:Jewish American businesspeople. As for List of Jewish American businesspeople, Wassermann may add as many names as he wishes to that list provided that they are all sourced. What he may not do is add inappropriate names and then complain when they are removed.--Runcorn 13:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Category:Jewish-American businesspeople (I forgot the hyphen). It was deleted with less than 5 'votes' [1], overturned and relisted [2], and then deleted again [3]. You also state that all names must be sourced, but have you taken a look at all of the other Lists of Jews and/or Lists of Jewish Americans lately? How many lists/articles do you notice are sourced amongst those pages? --Wassermann 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not excusing any deletion, nor do I know why they are doing it; however they may be deleting it bc they feel that the category is part of the racial stereotype of the "money-grubbing Jew". VanTucky 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with censorship, just a straightforward judgement about what categories are appropriate for navigation, based on community consensus. If you think that is censorship, you should spend some time living in a totalitarian state to learn what censorship really means. Sumahoy 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This project is poisonous and should be deleted

This is just a place for gangs of people with certain fashionable prejudices that they like to imagine are high principles, to get together and try to use mob power to try to impose their values on the whole user base and readership. It has no legitimate purpose. It is not neutral, it does not improve information, it creates ill-will and encourages bullying and witch hunts. It forgets that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a means of self-expression. It should he killed off.

Sumahoy 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And you forget that a lot of people could not care less about WikiP as an source of knowledge, but instead treat it as exactly a means of self-expression by killing off unwanted truths. Thats why this project is needed, and your rant is superfluous. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that the project should be deleted, then nominate it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thryduulf 08:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Although we clearly do improve information by ensuring that legitimate information isn't removed. ≈ The Haunted Angel 10:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:User against censorship

This template has been deleted. Please contribute to the Deletion Review discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 19, so we can hopefully get it reinstated. Willy turner 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a userbox you're talking about, most of them have been moved to userspace per the Wikipedia:Userbox migration. There are a couple folks who have a copy of the WaC userbox: {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Free Speech}} or {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}. If it's a different userbox, feel free to recreate it in your own userspace. — Wwagner 22:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WikiProject: Pedophilia Article Watch

I've been observing this WikiProject for a while now, and I'm little concerned about their activities regarding pedophilia-based articles. Their goal is to eliminate POV issues in pedophilia-based articles, as you can see by their page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch

When this project had began, I expected them to work as much as on anti-pedophile POV issues as much as pro-pedophile issues, but if you check out their talk page as well as their members' comments on many of the pedophilia articles in this site, you'll notice that most of them concentrate solely on the pro-pedophile POV issues. Not to mention, some of its members deliberately attack people who may bring up a reasonable argument against them by calling them "Pro Pedophiles". Considering this, is it possible that this whole project could be used as an excuse to censoring potentially will-argued and sourced counter points in pedophilia articles? With this possibility in mind, I'd like WP:WAC to keep an eye on their activities. 71.63.3.227 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a recent member of the project, and while I do not edit the central articles of the project's purview, I have had some small interaction with long-standing members. It should be noted that the project was created expressly as a counterpoint to the influence of the very real pro-pedophile lobby that was using Wikipedia articles about pedophilia and child sexuality as a soapbox to support their views. So it's not really as if there is this beleaguered minority of Wikipedia users who aren't personally pro-pedophilia but are advocating for more NPOV, but are being blocked by this evil anti-pedophile propaganda machine. It was created to combat bias already in articles, and in my experience, I have seen most of those involved with the project to have no more strong anti-pedophilia stance than does any member of the general public only a more ardent belief in protecting the sanctity of the Wikipedia's neutrality. It isn't exactly a COI to be vehemenently against pedophilia, just as it's not to be against anti-semitism and edit the Holocaust article. A strong moral stance against violence isn't to be equated with POV-pushing. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was developed as a counterpoint to pro-pedophile lobbies? Forgive me if this is just my misinterpretation, but shouldn't the proper way of addressing POV issues be to just eliminate POV edits instead of just balancing/replacing it with opposite but equal POV edits? I don't care about its moral stance. I'm concerned about its potential to push its moral stance to where they use censorship tactics and turn Wikipedia as a political soapbox for their views, just like the pro-pedophile lobbies you mentioned. There needs to be a referee that has NO acutal stance on the issues. Two wrongs don't make a right. 71.63.3.227 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what I meant. The project wasn't developed to insert counterpoint into articles, it was created as an ideological counterpoint to POV-pushing by pedophiles, i.e. as an organization expressly created to ensure a NPOV in articles of this subject matter. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This may just be ignorance on my part, but if it's to ensure NPOV in articles regarding pedophilia, I'm not sure what you mean by "ideological counterpoint". 71.63.3.227 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the project wasn't created to push an anti-pedophilia POV, but that it was created solely to ensure NPOV by acting as a watchdog for articles that have notoriously been perverted (if you'll allow the pun) to advocate for a subtle, or not so subtle, pro-pedophilia point of view. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, to put me at ease, does the project have anything to prevent itself from being abused to push anti-pedophilia POV once they fixed pro-pedo POV issues? Some of its members, for example SqueakBox, have been edit warring in relevant articles (like lolicon) under the suspicion of other users, of pushing an anti-pedo POV. 71.63.3.227 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no guarantee of any project, article or user being completely NPOV, that's just Wikipedia. I can't comment on Squeakbox's actions, but if you have concerns this is not the place to bring it up. You might try the Wikiquette notice board or the Admin's incident noticeboard. But just being realistic, a anon user going up against an long-time admin on that latter talk page will probably be shouted down. I suggest first creating an account (though not simply for the single purpose of attacking Sqeuakbox, that will get you blocked in a jiffy), and then trying to work out content disputes before going after what you may see as a pattern of behavior. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Offering to "referee" such a match is advertising an open forum.. ie: Advertising a soapbox. In fact... What?
ThisMunkey (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rusty trombone

if you disagree with my idea that the issue at hand is one of censorship, then simply say so. Do not presume to think your sole opinion on an issue makes it unworthy of listing. If consensus shouts me down, that's acceptable. But unilateral dismissal is not. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need...

...that rather abrasive and incivil message about userboxes? Haven't most of them been moved to user's subpages and the problem (mostly) solved? 68.39.174.238 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG blue ribbon

I replaced the PNG image with an SVG one, and made it 360 pixels wide. have a look and tell me if you have comments, or edit the page if you think it doesn't look good. NerdyNSK 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles

What do the Wikipedians against censorship think about not allowing users to identify themselves as pedophiles on their user pages? A.Z. 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an enormous can of worms and regardless of any principle involved I feel that the time is better spent elsewhere. Orpheus 07:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is beyond debate that allowing the statement "this user is a homosexual" but disallowing the statement "this user is a pedophile" is a violation of foundation:Non discrimination policy (The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of (...) sexual orientation), but as Orpheus said, let's not open that can of worms again. Melsaran (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you check that link? It goes to a blank page. Orpheus 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Melsaran (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a "non-discrimination policy" for Wikipedia contributors, even if there is one for Wikimedia foundation employees. There's WP:NPOV, which requires that relevant points of view be represented in articles. But there's also WP:POINT, which forbids deliberate disruption of the project, and WP:NOT, which forbids making Wikipedia into a battlefield or a MySpace page.

Part of the problem here is that "pedophile" is generally taken to mean one of two things:

• a person who does have sexual relations with children; that is, a child-molester, someone who does something both illegal and morally revolting to most people; or
• a person who feels powerful compulsions to have sexual relations with children; that is, someone who is psychologically abnormal in a way that leads them to do the above.

To understand the way that people respond to the former, consider what would happen if a person labeled themselves as a rapist or a murderer. To understand the latter, consider if they labeled themselves a psychopath or a kleptomaniac.

I understand that there are other interpretations of the term "pedophile". I know about Alcibiades, thank you, and I also know about the history of the gay-rights movement. (Mainstream gay-rights organizations in the post-Stonewall 1970s opposed age-of-consent laws.) However, it is also quite understandable that people react to a userbox that says "I'm a pedophile" in more or less the same way they'd react to "I'm a serial killer" or "I'm a slave trader".

As such, it's disruptive to the project for pedophile contributors to proclaim themselves as such, in a way that it is not disruptive for gay contributors to proclaim themselves as such. In civilized countries, including the U.S. where Wikipedia is hosted, gay sex is not illegal, nor is it considered by the medical establishment to be a psychological derangement; adult/child sex is. --FOo 03:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo Obfusco's points. Self-identifying pedophiles are blocked on sight for good reason. Allowing Wikipedia to get identified as an outlet for pedophiles would be immeasurably damaging to the project. Comparing homosexuality and pedophilia in this arena is not just incorrect, it's patently absurd. Homosexuality is something that is, in many instances, protected from discrimination by law. Pedophiles are those who are discriminated against under the law, and for good damn reason. VanTucky ^Talk 03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles who do not engage actively in sex with children are not discriminated against under the law. Melsaran (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pedophiles are not discriminated against under the law in civilized countries. A.Z. 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but I reiterate my statement above - regardless of the principle or merits of either side of this, there's better ways to spend the time instead of trying to reopen this discussion. (this comment is directed generally, rather than specifically at Melsaran, btw) Orpheus 09:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not agree with VanTucky, and s/he misstates my position in claiming to agree with me. I do not think it makes sense to block a Wikipedia contributor for self-identifying as a pedophile:

• It alienates that person from the project, making it nearly 100% certain that they will come back to cause us other problems in the future (disruption, vandalism).
• It increases their identification with a "pedophile" identity, and their belief that being such is some kind of persecuted victim status rather than what it is, a paraphilia.

Hell, I don't think someone should be blocked for self-identifying as a murderer. But it's a bad idea for people to do so, and it should probably be reverted if they do it. --FOo 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The sexual attraction of adults to children is not in itself considered a paraphilia -not even by the DSM. It is just a perfectly acceptable sexual attraction. The DSM considers that people who are older than 16 years old and try to have sex with children, or become disturbed due to this attraction to children, have a paraphilia. I don't know on what they base this opinion. A.Z. 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that the goal of this wikiproject is to help correct situations where article content is censored. Userspace is entirely different, and not within the scope. WilyD 20:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, as you can see above, there are people being discriminated against, which makes the scope of this WikiProject pretty much an irrelevant matter. A.Z. 01:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. Whether or not there's any discrimination, this isn't WikiProject:Help! I'm being oppressed! Orpheus 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post didn't change my mind. A.Z. 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, if you want help with the issue, this is not the place to request it. WilyD 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Any place should be a proper place to request that people help other people stop being discriminated against. A.Z. 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Method of removal

I noticed that when you look up F*cking in the search bar it reveals a shit load of censored material from users not knowing any better. This could be used on other words to similar effect. I'm working on ones that are obvious that they are not supposed to be censored. TostitosAreGross (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on the basis that WP:PNSD polling is not a substitute for discussion. There is no reasonable argument not to include word definitions on Wikipedia unless short of space or wishing to kill a bit of it in favour of wiktionary. BOO!
ThisMunkey (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I got a good response on WP:DICT and want to suggest adding info on using wiktionary tags and Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy for maximising search engines hits to Wikipedia:Your first article.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Censor template

There's a dispute at Doctor of Medicine that might (or might not) interest some people here. One editor wants to include a {{censor}} template on the talk page, possibly to express his frustration at his POV not being represented in the article to his satisfaction. If it happens to interest you, or you'd like to express an opinion, please feel free to put the article on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

History of earth discussion

Below is archived discussion from the main page about alleged censorship of young-earth and creationist theories from articles discussing the history of Earth. Copysan (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Young earth theory and intelligent design are much, much more widely held views than the flat-earth theory.--Urban Rose 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The religious belief that Odin, Vili, and Ve created the world out of the bones of Ymir is also not particularly relevant to these articles, which are about the actual, physical earth and not about creation stories. --FOo (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design isn't a "creation story". It's a generic belief that the universe was created by a sentient being, rather than an explosion, and a very widely held belief among people of virtually all religions and by many scientists.--Urban Rose 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. "Intelligent design" is a term that was invented when the United States courts decided that public schools couldn't teach "creation science" on the taxpayer dime, just as "creation science" was invented when the courts said the public schools couldn't teach "creationism". "Intelligent design" is contempt of court dressed up in a stolen lab coat. --FOo (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, it is irrelevant how many people hold this belief. What is relevant is how many experts in the field have published this belief as a serious theory, and to what extent it has been peer reviewed. Cambrasa confab 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationism and such fail WP:V when it comes to talking about the history of Earth. Copysan (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Copysan. However, if anyone feels that creationism should at least be mentioned, a link to the Creation myth page could present these "alternate theories" as a human phenomena rather that a group of ideas that wont pass WP:V Ryan shell (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So no sources that cite intelligent design as the means of earth's origin are reliable? I find that hard to believe unless they are being considered unreliable simply because of what they support. And it's also worth mentioning that all of the sources for the earth's age cite that I've seen cite radiometric dating methods, which according to my sources are notorious for being inaccurate but are favored by scientists who believe in an old earth because of the billion year old results they yeild. I've recreated the earth article in my userspace so that I can work on finding sources that support alternate believes regarding earth's age and origin.--Urban Rose 13:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Scientific evidence discounts such myths as a non-testable and inherently unverifiable explanation of the scientific history of Earth. Copysan (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd review reliable sources, you'd find these assertions are false. If you want to learn about radiometric dating and the age of the Earth, start here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AREPS..35..577S . Feel free to muck about in your userspace but in the namespace you'll be stuck with RS and UNDUE. WilyD 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, please remember that from WP:USER, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." Copysan (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Radiometric dating is somewhat imprecise, but even the largest margins for error still give much greater ages for the Earth than those proposed by the Bible and similar sources. There are also other methods, such as meteor impact frequencies. DNA mutation analysis gives dates for the beginning of complex life forms which also predate biblical estimates, and I'll bet there are other indpendent estimators based on the fossil record which reach the same conclusion. This would appear to me to disprove religion-based hypotheses for the age of the earth, so it is consistent with WP policy to exclude such hypotheses from scientific articles. Ma^t_chups 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Depending on which isotope chain you're using, this isn't even necessarily true. We can get reliable ages for (some) meteorites to plus-minus 1 million years. So the time when solids condensed out of the solar nebula is known very well. The earth is a little dicier, because the surface kept remelting, but we can probably constrain it to be within 30 million years of the meteorite dates. The science has advanced a lot of late. WilyD 12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From User:Kww's talk page

From the limited reading I've done (much of which has been young-earth creationist publishings) I have been at the conclusion that there are many holes in the big bang theory and old earth theory and that the belief in that the universe was created as is and the belief that it is only several thousand years old are equally valid theories. If I have been wrong and science has recently (or not so recently) proven otherwise, I apologize. And I also recognize that it is Wikipedia's duty to report strictly what has been accepted by the scientific community, not what many people simply choose to believe in spite of the facts. I personally do believe in the big bang theory and in evolution, and am not sure right now whether I believe in a creator or not, but I previously considered based on my limited knowledge young-earth creationism to be an equally valid scientific theory. So in conclusion, I've learned something new and won't continue to try to insert people's personal beliefs into a factual article. I think that the article's header, which now contains a link to creation myths is fine and makes it known sufficiently that there are other beliefs about the earth's age and origin without getting in the way of fact.--Urban Rose 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, eh? We do get a lot of POV pushing on this front and so people to get a bit bitey, trouble your heart not. You should probably be aware that a lot of creationist literature is riddled with boldface lies, though more often misunderstandings and repetitions of what someone else has said with no real thought to it. Anyone with a few pieces of wire can see the afterglow of the Big Bang (in fact, set your TV to channel 1 and about 10% of the static you see is a signal from the Big Bang's afterglow ... proving this is somewhat harder, but see COBE or WMAP.) Critical evaluation of sources is key here. WilyD 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex abuse and scouting

An issue which has occupied me for a while might be worth raising here. Last year I saw there was a fair amount of material on Wikipedia along these lines (current article names) Catholic sex abuse cases (which inter alia features a long list of individual abuse cases), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country (ditto), Ferns Report, and so on.

Having no axe to grind - check my edit history - but for reasons of simple curiosity I looked for where Wikipedia mentions abuse in the Scouts (as detailed in, e.g., Patrick Boyle's book Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution). I couldn't find any reference to abuse anywhere in what seems to be an extraordinarily large number of pages about scouting. So I tried simply adding a reference to the Boyle book to the main Scouting article: this lasted less than an hour. Not long later I was insulted (labelled a Troll by an editor with many scouting edits in his history) which was a surprise.

I ended up doing quite a lot of research and then creating an admittedly not particularly strong page, which copies the name of the Catholic equivalent - Scouting sex abuse cases. After doing this – and arguing some truly strange points with what seems to be well-organised pro-scouting editing - I took a nice long break. Coming back, I see the page is now almost a joke page, and most of the research is ignored. There is nothing like parity across the sex abuse pages so last month I posted this on Talk: Catholic sex abuse cases:

Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at a (very) different article: Scouting sex abuse cases. There are well-organised vested interests determined to cover-up what goes in the Scouts so some fresh contributions might be useful.

In relation to that final comment:

(a) I have no animus against scouts, scouting or scoutmasters (or at least I didn’t until this article brought me into conflict with scouting-keen Wikipedia editors, some of whom have been elected to higher positions)

(b) This quote from a 2006 article in the Seattle Times [4] is maybe of most relevance to this project:

They have thrown just an unbelievable amount of money and effort at preventing us from getting these records and telling the world about them

Testbed (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• i've skimmed some of the talk pages on articles you've mentioned, and i agree, this is obviously censorship, but it is there are several key points that need to be worked on. to list a few, prove (to the good-scouting PR editors) by that sex abuse in scouting is note-able and should be mentioned on the scouting page. next, Scouting sex abuse cases need to be looked at kept from moving (if such a thing is ever suggested again), also a neurtral editor need to look at it for neutrality issues. i'm going to put this on the notice board to show the rest of the project. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

There is an ongoing discussion regarding Sarah Palin's attempt to fire a librarian for refusal to ban books at this page's discussion page and whether the information should even be included in the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial discussion at Talk:Treblinka extermination camp

I recently reverted the removal of comments on this talk page that concerned denial of the Holocaust. In my view, the comments that were removed were good faith discussions. In another editor's view, they were vandalism. I'm not aware of any official policy that denying the holocaust is considered vandalism on wikipedia, but I'm aware that to do so in certain countries (France for example) is illegal. I consider it to be a matter of free speech, but another opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to protect Free Speech, which doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Talk pages aren't platforms for advocacy. While holocaust denial isn't explicitly vandalism, nobody would do it who wasn't out to make trouble. In very short, though, Nobody denies the Holocaust in good faith, and the sensible response to anyone pretending to be serious about it is to blank the comment and move on with your life. WilyD 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Plastering over someone's idiocy only serves to make martyrs for their wrongheaded cause. Confronting the issue openly and honestly is much more in line with the goals of wikipedia, and this wikiproject. Your assertion that no one could deny the holocaust in good faith assumes too much. There are plenty of people who hold completely irrational beliefs (in my opinion). Although I agree that wikipedia's goal's are narrower than the promotion of Free Speech, your solution to censor editors you disagree with, WilyD, will be ineffective in changing anyone's mind, and would be, I believe, a violation of wikipedia's policy not to be censored. (See WP:NOTCENSORED). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is strictly about article space. It doesn't apply to talk spaces. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, maybe WP:NOT#WEBHOST. We're not talking about about censoring editors we disagree with, but about not feeding trolls (to use the internet vernacular). The point is not about changing anyone's mind (collectively, we should have no interest in this), but about building an encyclopaedia and not overindulging those who're here to co-opt that for other ends.

I suppose I can quality my previous statement with "if someone genuinely pursues a holocaust denial line in good faith, they are so divorced from reality they cannot hope to participate in encyclopaedia building in a meaningful way". The reality is never this, though, but an advocate trying to co-opt Wikipedia's prominance to promote a thoroughly discredited viewpoint. This isn't something we should allow, as it actively inhibits encyclopaedia-building. WilyD 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reference to NOTCENSORED being strictly about article space. I agree with your points about NOT#SOAPBOX and NOT#WEBHOST. But your argument is that it is impossible to assume good faith in the face of holocaust denial. I should clarify that the comments that were removed from the talk page dealt specifically with the evidence concerning Treblinka, not the Holocaust as a whole. They were interpreted by the one who removed them as indicative of the editors' views as Holocaust deniers. To that extent, I restored them, arguing that good faith should be assumed. However, it's an interesting point. I suspect that those who made the comments really are holocaust deniers who have a political agenda to push. But I dispute that the answer is censorship, and the point that talk page discussion is not about changing minds. Much of what we do here is about finding a consensus of what should be reflected by the page. You say that people who don't think the Holocaust happened are divorced from reality (I would agree since there is extrinsic evidence I can see to show it did happen), but if we don't allow those people to voice their views, we limit ourselves to the version of "reality" that we have already decided is right. That's not to say we should disregard facts. Wikipedia should always be guided by a search for the truth (the ACTUAL truth, not some relativistic version of the truth where 2+2=5). But the method for finding that truth is honest and open debate, not censorship. An HONEST search for the truth should compel us to allow others to voice in good faith their views, even if they are completely wrong.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy or guideline

The proposal at User:Jmh649/Suppression of content may interest some members of this project. Also, I'm going to try to set up an archive of this page, perhaps set with a long timer. I hope that's helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedan for work-safety: Hide, don't remove

Many people are talking about removing "objectionable" picture, but I think what we need is actually a mechanism to keep NSFW pictures hidden until the user asks to see them. As such, it would not be censorship since the pictures would still be accessible. However, the user would have to click a button or javascript link to reveal them, such as how this works. Wouldn't this be the best of both worlds? Medinoc (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but how do you define "objectionable" and "not safe for work"? See the rejected Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphical content problem for a very similar proposal. If you can overcome the problems identified there, especially with regards NPOV, then flesh out your proposal with your answers and start a discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the problem. How does one start a discussion, and where? I'm really new to these parts of the wiki...Medinoc (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be the place. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest wikiproject?

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive 21#Largest_wikiproject.3F Ikip (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

deprofanitising where possible

I think you should also encourage removing profanity in good faith like the example in WP:Profanity. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of possible interest to the readers of this board.

Hi. It's me. Now, I know that you people and I have tangled on more than one occasion. For instance, I was recently in a discussion over whether an article should include an image of a person ingesting a half liter or so of sperm.

I said no. An important component of my opposition was along this line: "As encyclopediasts, we are heirs of Diderot, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and so forth -- committed to the advancement of human freedom and development through the free distribution of knowledge, paying no mind to (indeed reveling in) the objections of kings, dictators, the Church, bigots, fanatics, the superstitious, etc. But this image does not advance important human knowledge in any really meaningful and useful way in this sense. It is, if anything, only a provocative distraction from this mission."

I don't expect the readers of this board to agree with me, but that's my stance.

But now here's the thing. To my mind, the really important reason not have censorship here is not so much to protect stroke pictures but to allow free and scholarly discourse. But now this is in some danger, to my mind. WP:BLP states that the applies to talk pages, AfD's, and so forth just as much as to articles. But this has not really been enforced. But now it is being. Our ability to talk reasonably freely among ourselves (with some reasonable restrictions) is being challenged.

So this is something where readers of this board and I might agree: Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

American Censorship Day

Even WMF supports it, having changes their logo. Italian Wikipedia did it few weeks ago. Why are we not joining? See discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about changes to WP:NOTCENSORED

There is currently an active discussion about whether changes should be made to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. See almost every thread at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

Thinking of marking it with {{inactive}}. -- œ^™ 06:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be productive but it should be. I still check in and think this could address a important problem. When dominant Wikipedians attempt to censor material they don't like they get away with it for now. Please don't make it worse than it is. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Censorship is still an issue

If anything it has got worse. Search for Penis for example, and you will find an article with pictures of whale penises in jars- images of human penises are only to be displayed on the Human penis page to limit the offence a photograph of a penis might cause to someone looking for penis. I have been banned for 3 weeks, in part for displaying the 1866 painting L'Origine du monde in my userspace, and that image has been added to the banned list. The discussion on removing it from that list is MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Remove_File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg_from_the_Bad_image_list - please contribute.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Here is a description of censorship in action from an ANI i was involved in last year. I don't know where this idea of images only in main articles came from, but it is ridiculous.

I too have concerns about this IP's edits and fascination with dicks, erections, ejaculation, vulvas, pissing, etc.. (Having such fascinations in one's private life is one thing, but bringing it here becomes disruptive.) They seem to be pressing the limits of NOTCENSORED by seeking the inclusion of sensitive images in unnecessary places. They want explicit images of erect penises, ejaculating penises, peeing men and women, vulvas, etc., in lots of places where such images are unnecessary. In article sections we usually use wikilinks and links to "main" articles. That's where the uncensored images are used, not just everywhere. I tried to explain, but IP93 just doesn't seem to get the hint. Here's something I wrote to illustrate:

"Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest."

Will someone explain to them that wikilinks are sufficient (and don't have to be accompanied by an image), and that by using appropriate (and often very graphic) images on the final target articles, we are keeping Wikipedia uncensored, and that by refusing to plaster/spam such images all over the place, we are not violating NOTCENSORED? They need to stop this behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change of Image for the user box

Not quite sure how to do this, but I would like to suggest the substitution of L'Origine du monde for the blue ribbon as I think that expresses better the fight against censorship, and is relevant. Such a change would hopefully have the effect of reactivating this dormant group. While some might argue that this would be offensive, the size at which the image is displayed means this should not be a problem.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

{{User Gustave Courbet}} makes a good point I think.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 23:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of book by Koenraad Elst from Further reading section

An RFC has been started because an user was insisting of removing a book by Koenraad Elst ("BJP vis-a-vis Hindu resurgence) from the Further reading section of the BJP article.

The RFC ended with 3 votes in favor of keep and 2 votes for removal.

Now an admin has closed the RFC as "delete".

The only user in the discussion who was impartial (no history of editing in this topic area) voted for keep. All others, including the admin, have edited the topic area previously. Therefore I'm looking for the opinion of an impartial editor. Because the discussions are scattered over several pages, it is likely that the closing admin has not read all the arguments. The discussions are at:

1. talk page,

2. RFC This talk page

3. External_links/Noticeboard

4. Koenraad_Elst_in_further_reading

5. RFC_Closure_at_Bharatiya_Janata_Party

6. Discussion

7. Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_2#Koenraad_Elst_and_LK_Advani_book

--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we are discussing this edit at Bharatiya Janata Party. That added a book to "further reading". The book has been removed by the consensus of editors on the article talk page (and an RfC). The removal is good, and arguing about it is disruptive. The removal is nothing to do with censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I accept that. Since the removal was disputed also by other editors, all that was needed was a second opinion. Although I am not convinced that the consensus was for "delete" when the majority of votes was keep. This book would be notable, adds value because the pov is missing now in the section and is by an expert on the topic. Thanks again for looking at this. That the removal of a book by a controversial author has nothing to do with censorship is bound to be subjective. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that it is not the single case of censorship which is worrying, if it would just be this isolated case I would not have worried and perhaps even agreed with it, but the fact that there is a pattern where Hindu or pro-Hindu views are censored on wikipedia. Here is an example of this pattern on wikipedia (taken from a wiki talkpage):

Survey

I am conducting a survey to understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence,Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles.My personal opinion is that he represents Hindutva ideology and hence quotes from him will creep in bias in these articles.Since it is a Socio-religious issue.I will appreciate views from users of all religious - non religious followings.
Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source?
Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses hare.

• Answer here. ~~~~
• Big..No..No ..He is not a first hand information source for Gujarat..while Aid Agencies,News agencies,HR organisations,Police,Government comments will have weight

--Calypsomusic (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

New Notice: Art+Feminism Wikiproject

Reviving this notice board to premept some potential censorship problems. Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is running an edit-a-thon over the weekend of March 7 and 8, 2015. It would be helpful to have some folks from Wikiedians against Censorship around to help avoid any unnecessarily aggressive deletions during the edit-a-thon (lots of new users, lots of potential for unconstructive, politically motivated actions against the articles). Hopefully, some of us are still around and available to help out. MisterB777 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)