Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Leave a new message.
Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Jimbo quote

That email from jimbo said nude models on the main page, not hardcore pornography! --Phroziac (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

He is actually quoted as saying that Wikipedia could display "full-blown mainstream pornography" on the main page without violating any laws. I've changed the paragraph to say "full-blown pornography" rather than "hardcore pornography" since that was his actual quote.
"We could show full-blown mainstream pornography on the main page of Wikipedia 24 hours a day and not be in violation of any laws in the United States. It is pretty difficult to come up with something which is legally "obscene" by US standards in the context of Wikipedia." - Jimbo Wales
Kaldari 21:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right. I checked. --Phroziac (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, what say we include the other part of the quote too? The one the Decency folks have? WikidSmaht (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kill this project

Suggestion: kill this project now, before it generates even more heat on the whole discussion than the project that inspired it. Kill this project and all other political projects. A more rotten way of undermining consensus has never been invented. Do not segregate users into camps. Nobody wants Wikipedia to be censored (because "censorship" = "bad"), and that's not what the discussion, such as it is, was ever about. Do we need a neutral place to discuss when what content is most appropriate for the goal of writing an encyclopedia? Yes. Do we need factionalized niches where people can organize in "pro" and "con" camps and attack each other from the far ends? No. In its goal this project may be very noble. In its execution it is fundamentally undermining Wikipedia (as is, in its current form, its sister project that ostensibly promotes "decency"). This WikiProject madness has to stop. Where is the WikiLove, people? JRM · Talk 21:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, please stop....this is madness...polarizing madness. Rx StrangeLove 22:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
If WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is deleted, I will probably nominate this project for deletion as well. Otherwise, this project is necessary to coordinate defense against an organized effort to undermine Wikipedia policies. Kaldari 21:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not. Have you even considered the possibility that we can just edit and "reeducate" that WikiProject if it is not deleted? You have already lost in accepting that we must "organize efforts" against each other. We must not. We will not as long as I have anything to say about it. If the project is kept (and there is all the signs that it will) then both that project and this one will disappear and be merged into one project that does have value to Wikipedia, or I am severely misjudging what Wikipedia is. JRM · Talk 21:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea: merging the two projects. How would you propose to do that? Keep in mind that this project is not specifically about indecency, but is also for defending against political and other forms of censorship.
A project specifically about indecency was never worthwhile. And neither is one for defending against censorship! Both decency and censorship are loaded and overloaded concepts, and are very much in the eye of the beholder. (Is removing an utterly non-notable POV in compliance with NPOV censorship? You better believe its proponent(s) will argue so.) What you want doesn't need a WikiProject designed from the outset to polarize matters by labeling some things "censorship". WP:NOT and WP:NPOV should be taking care of business, and they don't need a WikiProject to be defended: everyone is expected to work in harmony with them. You want discussions on individual topics, but there is simply no added value to a project where all these discussions are centralized, unless you fancy gathering lots of sheep votes in issues. Who doesn't want to oppose censorship? Who will not argue removing this or that is censorship, when it suits them? This project is poorly defined and offers no constructive goal to work to; instead it encourages "opposition" of an abstraction.
What should replace these projects? I don't know. I don't have all the answers either. We should first identify the issues that are problematic, then deal with them. Directly, not in generalizations. "Possibly offensive images" is one clear issue. We could have a place (and I'm not saying it should be a WikiProject) to discuss what images are appropriate where, and under what circumstances, in a less acrimonious environment than WP:IFD; a way to integrate the individual discussions on images that have been going on now. The discussions would still be charged, but they wouldn't be doomed from the outset to degenerate into "well you're just from the pro-censorship project so obviously you're evil" discussions. JRM · Talk 22:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
For the most part I agree with you. However, I would be reluctant to remove this project while the other was still functioning, as it is ostensibly acting as a counter-balance. If you have a specific proposal for merging or deleting both projects, I would be open to your suggestions. Kaldari 23:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about that. When the VfD on that other thing runs out, there are going to be suggestions, you can be sure of that. Very strong, bold suggestions. In fact, I may just move the whole shebang and completely rewrite it. :-) I feel very strongly about there not being any "Wikipedians against/for X" projects. They must be refactored or perish in the attempt, otherwise Wikipedia really will end up like "just a bunch of flamewars". JRM · Talk 23:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with JRM. See my WikiEN-L post for more details. --Phroziac (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with JRM, but rather than kill it just put it on ice. If the "Wikipedians for Decency" project doesn't get deleted then this project may come in handy. Christiaan 21:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "put it on ice". Kaldari 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Suspend its development. Christiaan 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this project was ostensibly created in response to Wikipedians for Decency, I believe the value of this project can be much broader than opposing those who would censor Wikipedia in the name of decency. Wikipedia is also commonly the target of political censorship - usually the removal of information which is useful to those opposing a certain group, person, or situation. Recent examples include articles concerning Scientology, Lyndon LaRouche, the Nationalist Movement, etc. Is it not valuable to have a place where people interested in opposing censorship can be notified of such issues? Kaldari 22:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

JRM is completely correct that this project will undermine the fundamental way of doing things here, by taking a first step toward institutionalizing the factionalism and politicization that so far just simmers and breaks out in incoherent ways. But separately, this project is misguided. It states as its purpose to defend against something that does not exist here, and essentially cannot exist. Censorship happens when a group in a position of power directs that something not be published, and that directive is enforced, by the cops or whoever. The WfD people just can't censor in that sense. They can edit something out of an article, and that's it. Guess what, people. You can just put it back. The processes that are already in place here will make sure that people who care about the content of a particular article find out when it's edited by a bluenose, and bowdlerizing will quickly get reverted. Same goes for articles on topics that attract, um, excitable types like Scientologists and LaRoucheniks. No censorship, nothing that needs to get organized to defend against. The harm from this project is going to outweigh any benefit of having an organized clearinghouse against the WfD people. -EDM 05:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship doesn't require cops. Censorship happens when someone destroys or prevents access to a work of communication for the purpose of suppressing a viewpoint. For instance, there have been many cases in the United States where radical groups at universities have stolen campus newspapers when those newspapers have expressed views to the groups' disliking. This is censorship, even though the radical group is still a marginalized group with no access to cops to enforce their way of thinking.
An organized group with the purpose of censoring Wikipedia can certainly do a great deal of damage, and could, for instance:
  1. "win" revert wars by being able to deploy editors to revert in an organized fashion -- locking the censored articles up in revert war and suppressing their development;
  2. suppress whole articles by deploying editors to VfD in an organized fashion, in the manner of the group that campaigns against deletion of articles about schools;
  3. drive people off the project with intimidation, insults, and harassment; or simply because people who thought Wikipedia was an open-minded project will be very dismayed to find their contributions labeled "indecent".
The presence of an organized, efficient pro-censorship group, willing to defy Wikipedia policy or to "game the system", is a hazard for these reasons. Wikipedia procedures such as VfD are not immune to gaming or to being overwhelmed by an organized group, even if that group is far from the whole project's consensus. Just because there are more of us who oppose censorship than there are people who are for it, doesn't mean that we should slack off if they organize.
Because censorship is antithetical to Wikipedia's policies, it is entirely reasonable that a group intent on censoring Wikipedia be disallowed from organizing -- just as a group intent on vandalizing, or creating vanity articles, or posting personal attacks, or in any other way breaking the rules should be disallowed from organizing. But if it cannot be prevented, those who wish to protect Wikipedia's policies against censorship should likewise organize: to draw attention to abuses committed by censors; to countervail organized efforts to revert or delete articles for the purpose of censorship; to offer support to those being intimidated by censors; and to advocate for the protection and enforcement of policies against censorship and harassment. --FOo 16:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's not forget that they would sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Fluoridation of the drinking water is the way your basic hard-core censor operates. WikiProject Purity of Essence is needed to provide counterbalance.
Applying your analogy, explain to me what added value WikiProject Vandalism, WikiProject Vanity and WikiProject Personal Attacks would have. No, wait, I know: centralizing. Organizing. Specializing. Factionalizing.
"If it cannot be prevented", but it can. And no centralized anti-censorship project will improve things if it can't. We are already lost if that's the case. The next step would be witchhunts for invisible "terrorist" censorship organizations: "I suspect you have ties to al-POVda, the group we stamped out last month... Tell us the other members of your organization and repent, or be banned!"
Countervailing organized efforts to revert? How? By organizing efforts to prevent reverting no matter what? By organizing reverts yourself? Policies against censorship? Like what? "Don't remove things just because you don't like them"? I think we got that part covered.
I know I'm being violently and unproductively dismissive of the idea, but this has a good reason. I know how this project sounds in theory (yay free speech! Boo censorship! Fuzzy feelings!), but it will never work in practice. What we are talking about here, and let's call it what it is, is a project against POV pushing. It works on the assumption that centralizing and organizing will be effective to stamp out individual cases. Sure it will—you just get enough people to hit the POV pusher and he'll go away.
This project's vision of a noble bulwark against the organized masses of censorship is a chimera. If such groups ever formed, it stands to reason they have something to say that goes beyond "censorship", and opposing them on those grounds is silly. The people you oppose are the people you're not listening to.
Again, what is censorship? If a kook adds nonsense to a physics article and is reverted by everyone and their mother, will this project be under the obligation to "offer support"? Well, no, since that's not censorship, right?
"Censorship is the use of governmental power to control speech and other forms of human expression." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are no censors here. Only other editors. If they organize to push a POV, with reckless disregard to the representation of other POVs, they should be educated and integrated. If individuals cannot, they should be shown the door. But a centralized project to "oppose" other centralized projects? No. This is not Wikipedia's way. JRM · Talk 17:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This project is great and needs to stay. Wikipedia has starting to reach censorship on many articles and needs a group to protect against it. Anyone who wants to remove this group is a communist.

Jerry Jones 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The indecency tag

Who gets to decide who should have an indecency tag? How are they removed?

Tagging articles with this type of stuff is really a way of imposing a point of view on people. It is coercive and has to stop. --Gorgonzilla 21:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it was more of a joke than a serious criticism. Kaldari 21:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The vast majority of the tags were put on articles by those in opposition to the Wikikepedians for decency in an effort to make them appear to be cnesors. If you trace my history of edits along with the other two users that originally signed up for the decency project, you'll see that I put none up and in only a few isolated incidents, did the other two users utilize the tag. The templates were voted out as far as I know in Tfd and I removed them from the decency project main page.--MONGO 05:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The question I was asking here was what the proposed use is and what the process to decide on their removal is intended to be. As it is I think I will just delete any tag I see as an offensive attempt to impose a POV. --Gorgonzilla 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep this project

I see nothing wrong with this project and I encourage no one to try and nominate it for Vfd as it has a right to existence. I am completely opposed to censorship but I am not opposed to establishing a criteria of encyclopedic merit. Just my thoughts.--MONGO 05:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Depends in my view on what the role and scope of the project is. If it is to identify attempts to introduce bias through censorship and to redress them within the spirit and methods of Wikipedia, then all well and good. I am not sure that it is necessary, or desirable, at the present time given the serious issues with Wikipedians for Decency and the concentration a lot of people ar giving that. The Land 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO that we should keep this project. As I've said elsewhere, editors should have freedom to choose how to contribute and they should have the freedom of association with other editors, including the right to form projects to aid in their collaboration together. There are probably some projects that should not be allowed, like "Wikiproject to promote vandalism", but in general we should make room for WikiProjects. Johntex 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to Merge

The old Project for Decency has become Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. At this point I think it's clear that this project should be merged into that title, too; what's really important isn't mindlessly removing things or protecting them from removal, but including everything of encyclopedic merit, regardless of how people feel about it. Discussion of what constitutes the boundry of encyclopedic merit and what doesn't can then continue there, without the vitriolic and useless soapbox campaigning that these two projects have sparked. Aquillion 10:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Against merger. The big difference between the two projects is that in the merit project the members are "holier than thou" about explicit images and in the ant-censorship project the members are "holier than thou" about freedom of expression. Both views are being adhered to rigidly and without much compromise as it stands now. There is no way in the forseeable future that these two kinds of people can work together in a project. Not untill the trollcalling and nazicalling on both sides has subsided. In the mean time, both projects consist of member that have nothing but the wellbeing of Wikipedia as their highest goal. Just let the projects be and see what develops. --Lomedae 13:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see too many people refusing to compromise right now, actually. Everyone seems to be saying that other people will refuse to compromise, that the merge can't possibly succeed because of all the trollcallers and nazi-slingers with rigid views who apparently dominate one or both groups. Well, I think it's time to call those trollcallers out. Would anyone like to come forward as of Lomedae's hypothetical trollcalling, nazi-slinging rigid-viewers who would ruin any compromise as it stands now? I thought not.
Seriously, though, I am aware that there is a certain amount of bad blood between the two groups; that's a good part of why I suggested the merger in the first place. At the moment, that bad blood seem to me to entirely overshadowing anything that either of the two groups claims to stand for. Indeed, you yourself just admitted that these groups are often characterized by namecalling, holier-than-thou extremism, and rigid division. That is bad, a lot worse than any of the censorship or obscene images I've seen around here lately. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Removing an obscene image or reversing censorship just takes one click; getting hardheaded people to agree with each other takes a lot longer.
You say that we should wait and see what develops? Well, so far they seem to have developed primarily three things: trollcalling, nazi-slinging, and a proposal. If you want things to develop any further, then sooner or later you're going to have to put your foot down about the first two and decide on something; it seems to me it might as well be this. Aquillion 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Weak Support. In the intersts of Wikilove, perhaps it would be best to merge, however, the other projcet could still use some editing to remove the pro-censorship bias. Kaldari 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Against merger. It should be obvious that this Project was formed as a reaction to the formation of the other project. Have the two projects now moved towards each other so much that they are now the same thing? Maybe. I don't think so. Maybe they will. There is no harm in keeping them separate a while to see how they each evolve.
Yes, people need to compromise, and strive for consensus, but for the time being we can have those discussions on article talk pages. If common themes are developing, then it may prove productive to work together on new guidelines such as "WP:When nudity is/is-not appropriate in an article" or "WP:When does a political point-of-view or new religious group merit an article?" or "WP:NPOV use of titles or honorifics (such as 'His Holiness' or 'Supreme Commander')".
I would also like to point out that we have made room for other sets of projects that are similar to each other. For example, we have a different projects for "Fix common mistakes", "Grammar", "Typo", "Wiki Syntax", etc. Yet we do not require them to merge into one big project to fix all gramatical and style problems. Similarly, we have not merged Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Battles or a host of other projects related to ships, airplanes, etc. just because they might be construed to have a similar focus. On the contrary, we let each group of people find their niche and contribute as they feel they are best able. Johntex 16:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Against merger. The two projects, as currently defined, have significantly different focuses. Both can be consistent with underlying WP goals and policies w/o thereby being identical in focus. Maybe in a month the matter could be reconsidered. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:11, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
  • Against Merger, for oh so many reasons. 1. This group has a different focus then that group, this one opposes censorship, that one proports to support "encyclopedic merit". 2. Despite that name change that group has not changed to a significant degree and this group was created in direct opposition to that group. 3. Consensus appears to be against this merger espeically among this group's members.Gateman1997 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Toby

Perhaps ladies and gentlemen here will find this proposal acceptable, if not entirely palatable. I'm posting the same message here, as well as over in the opposite camp. Maybe all parties will find it equally unsatisfactory; that is the nature of compromise. But I hope that most will find it meets our needs. — Xiong熊talk* 04:19, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

[edit] Project tag

Someone more knowledgable than I should make something we can put on our userpages. I suggest it include the image image:Autofree.png, currently up for IFD at [1].

GODS NO. I want a worksafe userpage. ~~ N (t/c) 14:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Not inline, linked? Hipocrite 14:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not just link to the project page, then? ~~ N (t/c) 15:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A resounding vote of NO for that image, linked or not, we're trying to be taken seriously here last time I checked. This project is not about sex per se, and choosing an image like that only opens us up to ridicule. Apart from that, an image and link to project page is indeed needed. I'm certainly no expert in making these thing but if no other images are forthcoming then I'll give it a go. Lomedae 09:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

How about Image:Censorship mosaic.jpg? Found it while looking through Category:Public domain images. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-27 T 16:49:29 Z

A bit more subtlety: [2]. Of course, a thumbnail could only be iconic, you need to look at fullsize to understand the significance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:25, 2005 August 27 (UTC)


Why reinvent the wheel when there's aleady an icon for this kind of initiative?--Lomedae 09:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah! ~~ N (t/c) 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For those interested in more meta issues:

This is not in line with the goal of our project, but I'd think that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Trollderella might be of interest to many of the members here. "Troll*" appears to be a banned username if you believe in voting "keep" on VfDs. Hipocrite 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if they're going to name yourself after an offense against the rules, they might expect to have their actions looked into a little more closely. If I set up a business called "Fubar's Thievery and Extortion", I'd expect to get investigated. Likewise, a user named "troll" or "POV pusher" or "Personal Attacker" or whatnot, should expect some resistance. --FOo 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
For someone that has the word "fuck" in their username, you certainly are willing to take that first step down the cliff. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The user in question isn't a troll whatsoever, and no one has alledged that they are. Hipocrite 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
They're not a troll, perhaps, but someone here is. --FOo 15:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm merely pointing out that by taking this (worthless) step against usernames, you, or I, could be next. Who wants a hypocrite editing here, especially one who can't spell? Who want's someone who is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition, but hiding it? That I am a troll dosen't mean I'm trolling. That his username had "troll" in it, means neither that they are a troll nor that they were trolling. Hipocrite 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technological Solution for Allowing users to select what images they see

I (and others) have suggested at various times that ultimately a technological solution could exist. Images could be tagged with descriptive words such as "simulated violence" "partial nudity" "sexuality". Users would then have the option (probably through browser cookies) of choosing that they are OK with seeing nudity but not sexuality, or whatever their choice is. I recognize that there will still be arguments, (E.g. "what about a picture of two people kissing, does that qualify as sexuality?") but at least it would be an improvement. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I paste here some comments that came into the Help desk which is relevant to this discussion: [3]
"Is it possible to sanitise content within Wikipedia for profane language, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt , for use within a Primary school. We would like to use this resource as its probably more complete then any encyclopedia we currently have access to, but we need to make sure that things that parents might object to cannot be viewed easly. Thanks, John Bradshaw"
  • He was basically pointed in the direction of filtering software - but it was pointed out that filtering software can't interpret images. He was also told he could mirror Wikipedia and remove objectionable content itself (true, but a ton of work, and loses the ongoing additions to the project).
  • Then, apparently still John Bradshaw but now with a username said:
"...is it possible to suggest to the 'powers that be' some sort of Family Filter similar to google, where you actively have to click off or view if someone considers this to be unsafe material. Similar to the 'This content is controversial' options that you can have on entries into the encyclopedia? Machtzu 02:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)"
  • I would like to reiterate my support for such a technological solution. This would allow the user to have some control over the encyclopedic nature of their experience here. Johntex 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Filterware is only as good as the filter. Who decides what's blocked? I'll tell you right now that I think war is far more disgusting than penises, and would block accordingly. Hipocrite 17:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, with the right browser, one can always browse with images turned off in the browser, and selectively view images as necessary. All I'd ask for is that the image tags are accurate, so that an image tagged as "Pink fluffy bunnies in a field of buttercups" isn't actually the goatse.cx image. It is possible to argue that the article text should, to the extent possible, be capable of standing alone (which would help blind users of Wikipedia, as would accurate image tagging).
    From a technological point of view, it would certainly be possible to add labels to each image saying "Passed for viewing by the Brobdignagian Committee" and/or "Passed for viewing by the Liliputian Committee", and digitally signed by the appropiate committee. Then, all you have to do is decide whether your viewpoint co-incides with one or several committees, and view only those images passed by them. Libertarians would of course, browse viewing *all* images - thus censorship would apply only to those who wanted it. While conceivable, such a system would require a lot of development, so anyone wanting it would probably be encourage to fork Wikipedia and design it to meet their own ends.
    That brings us to the crux of the matter - those wishing to censor Wikipedia are in fact attempting to take a commonhold resource and bend it to their own ends, and I object to that. Nobody is forced to use Wikipedia, and anyone may take a copy, so interest groups that attempt to restrict Wikipedia are in fact being selfish. Such interest groups are completely free to set up a Wiki according to their own rules, even using Wikipedia content - the fact that they choose not to indicates to me that they do not believe their goals are sufficiently interesting to enough people to make such a project viable. WLD 21:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] They name it Orphanage

Amber Evans is the second try. Sad sad sad .MutterErde 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

all from today : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/August_31%2C_2005 , all from one guy ( OR. — THOR 21:01, 31 August )

see also  : : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noitall#Image:JoanSeverance-PBApril1990.JPG and its history [4] .


Many of them are commons images. This individual probably used my gallery to compile this list. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-1 T 00:55:35 Z



[edit] Here comes "decency"

Starting with porn: [5] [6] Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • That's right User:Hipocrite (how about signing those posts you are so proud of), it is call unencyclopedic and your comments and actions are extremely juvenile. Also, your actions today trolling edits and making bad faith edits because you don't get your way promoting your kiddie porn shows your true self. --Noitall 04:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)Deleted because User demonstrated capability for good faith edits. --Noitall 05:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The actress in question was born on January 4, 1980, making a 2003 shot of her from when she was 23, a 2004 shot of her from 24, and a 2005 shot of her from 25. I can't believe I married my wife when she was underage! Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment was lined out and kiddie referred to mental age, not actual age. --Noitall 05:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that consensus. The pictures are terrible - the box covers are just stupid to leave out there without comment.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
em , but you have reverted the attacks of the mullahs ?! How can this version ( = minus 3 pics ) be a consense ? Confused MutterErde 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC) btw. What´s wrong with this pic Image:Bobbi-eden-please-flesh10.jpg ?? ( only one example) 16:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The box covers don't make the article better - both from an informative perspective, and from a visual perspective. The big picture to the right does. Find more glamor shots and I'll defend them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is NOT wikipedia:USA

by the way: This is not wikipedia:USA , this is wikipedia:en , and that includes not only the christian mullahs , that includes some more english speaking countries round the world. For example: While Mom is buying a newspaper in Sydney her kids can watch all these gorgeous boobs on the covers. They seem to whisper: "Buy us! Buy us! When you have not enough money , help your Mom washing the dishes. You will get a little money and then come back.We have not only gorgeous boobs - we can show you what your Daddy loves most on your Mom."

Lucky minors outside the USA !

Image:GoddardPlayboyEspana0195.jpg , Image:PBSamanthaFox11-88.JPG , Image:PBDrewBarrymoreGreeceFeb95.jpg , Image:HollyWitt-PB-February1996.JPG , Image:BoDerek-Dec-1994.JPG

MutterErde 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Special offer to the christian mullah crew , section USA:

[link spam] Have fun MutterErde 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Note: Link spam/commercial advertisement is not permitted in WP. Not even in the talk pages where the intention is obviously just googlebombing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(just because the commercial site seems to have something to do with pornography/dating doesn't make it of interest to an anti-censorship project)

  • bla bla bla MutterErde 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that. I must also add:

  • Not only is wikipedia:en there for English speaking countries which are not USA, it's also there for any other people who can read (and write) in English. Many of which live in countries with completely different norms and mindsets than in the USA (or even any other English-speaking country). Wikipedia:en is a Wikipedia written in a most widespread language on Earth, and so it bears the responsibility of actually being the whole world's Wikipedia; biases should be avoided here even more than on any other language Wikipedia.
  • Similarly to the example from Australia above, here where I live, the last thing I'd try to protect my children from, would be seeing a pair of boobs or stuff like that. Come on, aren't there more important stuff out there? Why such an obsession with censoring stuff which mainly deal with sex? I can see that sex is presented as something horrible, and plain nudity and such are very much mixed up with the actual sex (and plain nudity and pornography should really be treated different). If I had to choose, I myself would prefer to let my children watch a mainstream movie sex-scene, than a firefight scene full of blood and death. I actually find it disturbing that American censorship principles work exactly the opposite. --Arny 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship Alert

Let's actually use this project for its purpose and now is our chance:

images up for deletion

It appears many images that were released under the GNU FDL are up for deletion by a user called THOR with no explanation given as to the problem. --ShaunMacPherson 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship alert

SPUI (talk • contribs) made a recent test run of the WP:TOBY proposal, which basically calls for people to put the Toby image on any pages they object to for any reason, so that other people won't see those pages any more (through a requested software feature that hides all pages containing that image, and makes it impossible to remove the image once in place). In other words, a censorship policy. Maybe some people should go to that proposal's talk page and explain why it's not a good idea. Radiant_>|< 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Toby is more complicated than that - for one, it's opt-in, so images are only hidden from people who choose to have images hidden. Also, it's not forever - there's some complicated algorithm (Wikipedia:Toby/Do) that allows it to fade over time (or something like that, I don't quite get the idea). But do feel free to come comment on the proposal. ~~ N (t/c) 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I know the big blue ribbon is already out there, but it's big so I made a userbox:

 This user supports Wikipedians against censorship

Tom 12:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, but it's really difficult to read the lettering against that shade of blue. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 This user supports Wikipedians against censorship

How about this version? The image is a little smaller, making the box narrower from the top to bottom, which (at least on my display) allows the text to fill it more. The background is changed from blue to lightblue, and the text is bolded. --FOo 18:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That looks much better! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi folks , I would like to have a similiar version , in red colour and with a instead of the blue ribbon. Anyone could do this for me and others? Greetings MutterErde 21:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Not I. That image is copyrighted, and we don't have permission to use it for that purpose -- neither from the creator, nor the model, nor from fair use / fair comment. --FOo 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
And in any case, why the hell would I want gratuitous nudity on my user page? ~~ N (t/c) 22:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This user supports Wikipedians against censorship'

 info

OK OK , it was only an idea . Greetings MutterErde 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would more appropriate for a different group, like Wikipedians for pornography, which is not what this group is. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A woman with gorgeous boobs is "pornography" ? Hey Man , what you are doing here ?
Are you a spy of the christian mullah crew ? Hang him !
MutterErde 06:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


The light blue one definitely looks better. Tom 12:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at hogtie bondage. There are two users, one an admin, who is determined to keep certain images off of the page, that don't actually show anything but he has deemed them to be nudity, and has also decided that he doesn't want them there, dispite a lot of discussion on the subject, the vast majority against what he has done. There is also heaps of talk about how Wikipedia shouldn't have such images at all and is "G" rated and heaps of other censorship rubbish. The original material was on the page hogtie, and in all fairness it may have been an inappropriate place to have such images, but there is no mistaking what the subject hogtie bondage is on about, yet the images have been chopped. The admin says that the images arn't neccessary to the subject, citing that nudity is irrelivent to the subject, but the article explains that this is a sexual practise and so such images are to be expected. Anyway, can someone please take a look at the original version before the Admins edits and post their opions here and/or on it's discussion page because I really think this guy is pro censorship. --61.9.148.239 00:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be porn, but it's encyclopediedic. The Republican 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About "porn", "crv" and more

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.#I_expect_your_excuse

MutterErde 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The following comment was added on article by User:Paeris

They have try and censor on Doggy style. Help please.

[edit] Userbox v2

I have made a userbox easy for people to use.

{{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Thanks to whoever made it originally (I saw it somewhere an added it to my page, then improved on it and made it a real template, you inspired me. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doggy style

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doggy_style&diff=prev&oldid=32040635

Editor is trying to remove nude image (that doesn't actually even show anything just is suggestive..), keeping only drawn pictures. Reasoning in Talk:Doggy style#Image is "Nobody has ever been offended by an orange, but many are offended by sexual photos" (User:Hedley).. I'm not involved in this but I thought I'd point out what the problem is in a more articulate way than the poor paniced newbie :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Project Template

I looked at the project templates I have for the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and for AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, and thought to myself ' why doesn't WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship have one of these?. ' So, I made one:

This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship

This anti-censorship WikiProject includes opposition to censorship of materials which some may deem indecent, but which are nevertheless encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia. It also includes political censorship, such as efforts to remove information about political dissent or information useful to those opposing a particular group, person, or situation.
WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship

What do you think? I think the text could use a rewording. I just copied the project info from the project page because I couldn't think of what to put. Any ideas?

The template is {{Freespeech}}, if anybody would like to use it now.

That should have been a userbox, it's way too big. The Republican 20:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that TfD has now deleted this template; the appearance above is hardcoded into this page.
That should be a userbox. The Republican 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is. Template:User freespeech. Gerard Foley 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Hi, I'm sorry you did not feel the issue at Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights was worth of notice on the notice board. The notice board states:

This notice board is intended to inform members of the project of votes or other current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project. Please do not list articles in need of attention here, but rather votes for deletion, votes for policy change or other current and ongoing events which warrant the immediate attention of the member base of this WikiProject. Please remove notices when votes are closed, or the event is no longer current.

and this is clearly a question of policy change. I also respectfully disagree that the question is related to censorship. Censorship takes many forms, one of which hides itself as adminstrative privelige.

I am adding my notice to the talk section here, in case other members of this assoication feel that the issue is worth consideration. --BostonMA 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Dec 2005

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [8], [9], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [10] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [11] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [12]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[13] --BostonMA 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC

I do see how the proposed policy could be indirectly related to censorship, but the connection seems weak at best. I imagine most of the people watching the notice board are more interested in issues directly related to Wikipedia censorship. Perhaps a better place to promote the policy would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Kaldari 21:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shock sites

I'm just trying to make sure I get this right; you don't condone material that can be found on shock sites, do you? I don't think I need to go into specifics. --Anittas 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't condone anything. We support the current Wikipedia policy, which states: "While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted." Kaldari 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] userboxes.

Stop with the userboxes alerts, please. This project, and it's longest term members, come down on differing sides of said controversy. Do not obscure our purpose (RF - the change to the censorship clause, the Quaran picture) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians against censorship on Japanese Wikipedia

I just created the "Wikipedians against censorship" project page on Japanese Wikipedia. link Hermeneus (user/talk) 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If my Japanese was any good I would help you out, but I wish you good luck with it! 頑張って！Gerard Foley 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored from alerts page:

[edit] Problem at Sun tanning

I tried to add free license images to this article but User:Wyss is being funny about it, reverting my version here and claiming that the top image will eventually be removed by "other users". I would appreciate peoples help and/or advice on this. Thanks Sven the merciless 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see why this picture can be interchangible with other pictures which are less revealing, but I don't see why removing that picture for another picture is censorship. Plus, I feel only one or two pictures are needed for the article, and atleast one picture should be a picture which documents sun damage upclose. A sun burn perhaps? --OrbitOne 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LordRevan and Admin Cencorship of Templates

I am OUTRAGED to learn that the powers-that-be have cencored many of the templates that were considered "politically incorrect." We as the Wikipedians aganist Cencorship should fight against this. Considering the fact that the Administration has cencored these right-winged based templates, I believe that many of the left-wing templates should be taken off of this site. Some of the right-wing templates that have been censored are Anti-UN, Wikipedians who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, Wikipedians who consider themselves Politically Incorrect, Wikipedians who are Pro-life, Wikipedians who consider themsleves Born Again Christians. These are all of the ones that I can think of that have been cencored, but there could be more. As a user, I believe we should combat all forms of censorship. I think all those who agree with me should rise up against the left-wing held admin and set things right. LordRevan 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is for censorship of Wikipedia articles. The place to complain about your userboxes being censored is WP:UBP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help

Guys, i need help. As you know, wikipedia has every type of things that are notable only withing a small group, everything from articles disgusting sex games, to pokemon cards, to warhammer to UFO.

My problem is that as soon as i creat a article in good faith and in aimes to enirch wikipedia with representation of the ideas of the 9/11 Truth movement, there comes a AFD on the article within 5 houres, claiming it has no notability in the big world. Take a look at this, and give me a comment:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conspiracies_Guild#AFD.27s

Thanks and peace. --Striver 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there any other WikiProject that could be intrested in taking a look at this? --Striver 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not censorship to delete your poorly written, uncited, unverifiable bad articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

I only just found this poll. Perhaps people here would be interested. Gerard Foley 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship Alert - Justin Berry

In an unprecedented move, Jimbo deleted an article about Justin Berry after Justin Berry called Jimbo over the phone and complained to him about the content of the article (the contents of the original article can be seen here). Since Jimbo violated his own rules regarding the handling of content disputes and never specifically listed what was wrong with the article, nobody is quite certain of what facts are "appropriate" for the article, and which are not. Attempts at reinserting the factual information from the deleted article are now being censored by a handful of editors. Corax 22:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't censorship - it is asking for sensitivity about a living person - and there are no restrictions on the recreation of the article. There is just extra vigilence expected taht everything included by verifiable and meet the rules of the NPOV. Trödel•talk 01:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
First, restricting the content of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia because that content might offend or otherwise miff people reeks of third-reich book-burning. If the verifiable facts in a certain article rub you the wrong way, you always have the option of not reading it. If we are going to pull back from reporting information about Justin Berry because Justin Berry does not like it being reported, are we going to hold back on reporting information on Jim Bakker because Jim Bakker does not like it? How about Bill Clinton? How about Scott Peterson?
Second, there apparently are restrictions on what can be contained in the article: whatever offends Justin cannot be included, no matter how factual that content is. That is why I posted about this debacle here. Corax 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Please provide an example of a factual statement that cannot be included in the article because it "offends Justin". Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, just take a look at the history of the article. Pretty much everything but a small, two-sentence paragraph keeps being removed in spite of the fact that the content is taken directly from a New York Times article. Corax 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this to the talk page for two reasons: It falsely identifies Jimbo as a censor (see WP:OFFICE), and it is too long for an acceptable notice. Having said that, there is obviously a censorship problem on the page and I encourage advocates to attend the discussion of the new article. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALERT

Just thought I'd make you all aware of Wikipedia:Wikiethics which is in short a censorship proposal. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the user who started the Wikiethics proposal was offended by the Mohammed cartoons, and upset that they could not be removed under standing wikipedia policy. I think that this is rather telling as to the intent of the new proposal; it seems likely one of the first uses of such a new policy would be to strike the cartoons as "offensive." Sensitivity should only be a concern in writing the encyclopedia when choosing among equivalently informative options. Preferences over information and sensitivity must be lexicographic. Tomyumgoong 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Given the mfd on this project, would you perhaps consider a renaming of the project, perhaps renaming to WikiProject Freedom of information or some such variation, which delineates the goal better than the somewhat misleading title, which imples that people who are not members are supportive of censorship. Steve block talk 10:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The mfd appears to be more related to the heat on the Justin Berry article. From what I can garner, the mfd is entirely inappropriate and based on incorrect facts, and very few actual members of WAC are actually involved. So, I respect your suggestion but I don't think it should be based on any findings from the mfd.
But I think your request has merit anyway. Please remember we're talking about defending a policy wikipedia is not censored. If the policy changes it's wording to wikipedia is an exercise in freedom of information we could lose the word 'censorship', but we should follow the wording of the WP:NOT policy.
It seems you are more opposing the word against than anything. Perhaps wikipedians patrolling censorship is a better name for dealing with your concerns, or even the freedom from censorship project. Since you've implied that your stance on censorship is neither pro nor anti, I am open to changing the name so it embraces users of a variety of sliding scale opinions on how actively you would like to partake in censorship issues. Would you feel more welcome to participate if the name were changed? Do you think it would help the group avoid group mentality problems? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 11:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians Patrolling Censorship is a better name than we have now, but it still sounds clunky... Keep those ideas comin? Copysan 00:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My editing style is to follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, so I find myself already contributing whether you or I are aware of each other. I don't really wish to join a wikiproject merely to express myself as being against censorship, nor do I feel it should be neccessary to do so. Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom from censorship is certainly an alternative. Please note my concern is not based in the [[Justin Berry] affair but rather the divisive quality of the name. I endorse the policy at WP:NOT but feel the policy should be at the heart of the issue, not the users battling it. The WikiProject term already denotes that it is a group of users who have gathered together, thus I do not see the need to restate it. Please note, I do not wish to cast aspersions on the goal itself. I would hope that you would look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as an inspiration, they have not seen fit to declare themselves Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for fair use. Steve block talk 12:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)2
It's not a conspiracy Steve. It's simply a group with a goal. If you think the wording can be improved you can make a suggestion without making a case that someone deliberately created a false dichotomy to incite a revolution. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
At no point have I meant to declare that someone deliberately created a false dichotomy to incite a revolution. I find it hard to even read such an accusation in my words. I am merely offering my opinion that the current name is thought divisive, as per comments at the mfd, and offering a suggested alternative. Steve block talk 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Truly I mean no offense Steve, but I notice you merely took 300 words to offer a 4 word name change?
  • You say: "(the name of this group) implies that people who are not members are supportive of censorship."
This is saying that you think the name alone causes division on censorship issues. This is a false dichotomy.
  • You say: "I endorse the policy at WP:NOT but feel the policy should be at the heart of the issue, not the users battling it."
This is saying that you think users come here to start battles.
Did you not expect someone would want to discuss your critical judgements against this group? I request you add Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith to the list of policies you like to follow. The WAC group was started in good faith. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Um. I'm not sure what's happening here. I came here and asked if the project would think about changing its name. Doesn't seem too unfair a proposition. You seemed to agree. After that, I'm not entirely sure how it went pear shaped. I'm quite happy for people to take my suggestion and do with it what they want, I recognise the consensual nature of the Wikipedia. I thought there was a reasonable suggestion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom from censorship, perhaps people will consider that, fair play to you if you reject it, all I can do, and indeed, all I did, was to ask you to consider my suggestion. I can't see any point discussing your interpretation of my words, since I don't actually agree with that interpretation, and have already stated that any such interpretation was not meant, so I am happy to let my words rest as they are and be my own defence. As to your request to assume good faith, please be assured I follow it daily, but thanks for the gentle reminder. I hope you are not too offended if I ask you to consider your own words in the light of that policy. Happy editing! Steve block talk 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you didn't mean to lace your words with critical judgements of the group. Like I said, no offense intended. Happy editing to you to. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose wikipedians and censorship as a possible name to change to.--Clawed 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and Sensitivities

Hello editors. Many users have this noticeboard on their watchlist. If you are unsure of the accuracy and neutrality of a statement, run it by another editor before you post it on the board. It very would be very easy to mercilessly delete an anti-censorship group if we were perceived as hostile towards well meaning wikipedians.

So, simple. Don't be hostile. It isn't necessary. Please respect peoples sensitivities. This is too serious an issue to be sensationalised. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection To The Justin Berry Notice

This was posted on the notice board. I've copied it here (which is more than it deserves):

  • I still haven't seen any evidence that WP:OFFICE was ever invoked on the Justin Berry article by anyone authorized to exercise it, which according to the current draft of the policy, is one individual with the name "Danny." The Justin article was never listed on the WP:OFFICE page, and claims of WP:OFFICE by various admins seem to have been little more than a convenient pretense to blank everything added to the Justin article without any forthcoming explanation, and to ban anyone who complained. Since the rewritten article, which is currently being left alone, is a superset of properly sourced information which mere days ago, was being deleted on sight, it is pretty clear that several admins in this dispute greatly exceeded their authority. I'm not going to single them out by name, but given the egregious admin misconduct here, I think it would be a nice PR gesture to reverse all the blocks which stemmed from the Justin controversy. Jimbo merely blanked the article, and politely asked that it be rewritten by new authors. He didn't ask for an Inquisition to be held. Some people here have let their personal views about sex abuse, minors, and minor-attracted adults motivate them to use their admin privileges to attack others, and that has damaged Wikipedia's public reputation. Dismissing the resulting mess as an "edit war" is at best disingenuous. 66.109.195.60 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And I only just got finished asking users not to be hostile. I apologise for any misunderstanding we might have. It's really as simple as 123:

1.) WP:OFFICE The Wikimedia Foundation receives an increasingly large number of phone calls and emails from people who are upset about various things on the site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often they are not. However, in most cases, even with the invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the long run. WP:OFFICE reverting a WP:OFFICE may be grounds for blocking.

2.) Mr Berry called and complained. Jimbo reset the article.

3.) The end.

What followed was an issue of discrimination and ethics, not censorship. How much these two issues overlap is something to be discussed on talk pages, not on noticeboards. The article on Justin Berry is now rewritten and editors have expressed their happiness that the article is much better. There doesn't appear to be any remaining issues of censorship. If you want to start a discussion below please talk about the issues, finger point and say whatever you want. Just keep hysterical outbursts off the noticeboard, it's inappropriate. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


1. from WP:OFFICE..."I have created this page for Danny (Danny is a longtime Wikipedian who is an admin in English Wikipedia, and globally a steward. He works for the foundation, primarily as my assistant, but increasingly in working on grant applications) to use to signify why he is deleting or blanking something per my authorization. This does not signify any authoritarian top-down action without approval, but rather signifies a temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the encyclopedic way forward.

"If this works out, I may authorize other people to use it as well (people handling OTRS email queues, people on the legal team, etc.)--Jimbo Wales 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)"

2. In the preceeding, Jimbo states that all WP:OFFICE blankings will be done by Danny, who will cite WP:OFFICE when doing them.

3. Jimbo is not Danny, nor did Jimbo cite WP:OFFICE when blanking the Justin article.

4. What followed included discrimination and ethical lapses, but was also censorship. The fact that we now have an article, and all new material is not being instantly deleted, has to do with admins backing off their earlier feeding frenzy, for whatever reason.

5. This is not an "hysterical outburst." If Jimbo wishes to state that the original blanking was done under WP:OFFICE and the admins acted appropriately in citing WP:OFFICE for their actions, (although they claimed reverting stuff on other related articles was WP:OFFICE, when it clearly was multiple reversion of non-vandalism), I will cede the point.

6. Undoing all Justin-related blocking would demonstrate good will on the part of Wikipedia, soothe the feelings of the angered, and encourage them to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, instead of spending their time trashing Wikipedia in their blogs, perhaps justifiably.

7. Good PR is avoiding even the appearance of censorship, even if you think you have some complex explanation of why something technically isn't censorship. 66.109.195.60 15:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Based on additional information I've obtained from an offsite mirror of the original Justin Berry article, I'm going to revise my comments above. It appears that Jimbo originally blanked the article with the comment "This page temporarily blank.' WP:OFFICE" in the edit history, but when he deleted the article and its revision history to create a new one, he erased his own WP:OFFICE notice. Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice, I guess. My comments about it being censorship, the admins deleting new stuff that was not taken from the blanked article, frivolous banning, and suggested remedies still apply. Overall, I would now characterize the episode as "poor communication." 66.109.195.60 18.46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dismissing it as "poor communication" disingenuous at best!!! Hehe, just kidding! Yes, I agree. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Where did you find this original copy of the article? Copysan 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There's an interesting new Web Site about Wikipedia. They have the original Justin article, as well as other deleted things, and biting commentary. 71.212.67.10 06:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship alert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_criminals_and_victims

I believe it has encyclopedic value but it shows some Jews in a negative light so its being considered for deletion. Please offer some assistance.

Jerry Jones 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a standard VfD to me. I see nothing there that suggests an attempt at censorship. Gerard Foley 00:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Member list

I feel like what I'm saying is rather unimportant in comparison, but...I could, if people wanted, to reorganize the member list in alphabetical order. —Mirlen 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Censorship alert!

On the Talmud page posting anti Christian quotes which are verifiable factual information which is in fact in the Talmud have been continually removed. The article is extremely one sided. Both the Quran and Christian pages have all of the anti-Semetic quotes posted and I dont see why the Talmud should have another standard. Why should the Talmud be given special treatment? Please assist.

Jerry Jones 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be helpful it they weren't false quotes invented by anti-Semites. Jayjg (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] censorship of inconvenient facts

here's a fact: some members of the jewish community are world-class musicians, chess-players, physicists, mathematicians etc. i'd imagine this fact is well noted at wikipedia in category boxes etc. if it isn't, you'll encounter no problems in noting it. here's another fact: some members of the jewish community have been involved in fraud and financial and political scandal. for examples of the difficulty you will face in noting this fact, up to and including a threat of indefinite blocking, examine the history of e.g. David Garrard (property developer), Barry Townsley, Jewish Care, Conservative Friends of Israel. nothing that suggests any link between the jewish community and wrongdoing is permitted, and is quickly removed on often ludicrous grounds, e.g. marriage by a businessman into an important business family is trivia. jamaissur lemon or lime?

It's odd to stick in the first paragraph of an article the name of the subject's father-in-law, unless of course you're an anti-Semite desperate to find a Jewish link to the subject because he's involved in a scandal, and flailing around are able to find only that the wife's father is a Jew, so bang, in that goes as practically the first sentence. If you discover that the subject's dog walked past a synagogue last week, that'll doubtless be your next edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually SV, I'm not sure why you chose to revert here. I presume you are doing so because you feel the comments had undue weight? Can you elaborate? It looks like the facts were cited correctly and were indeed true information for the article. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I will add though, the entire article looks a little slim. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
"A little slim"? If you have a look at User:Jamaissur's contributions (including the now deleted articles), you will note that they consist almost entirely of entries intended to tie alleged British Jews to scandal and Israel. After seeing this go on in two dozen articles, he has been informed that he needs to actually write proper articles about individuals, not just copy often unsourced boilerplate attempting to smear British Jews. I'm not going to continue going around turning his defamatory boilerplate crap articles into proper stubs. Until he starts doing so, his edits simply will not stick. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
They have not been 'often unsourced' and you censor sourced material anyway. The rule I'm breaking is 'Obey the orders of Jewish admins' -- who do not follow to follow the rules they apply to others. If I'd described your comments as 'bleating' or your edits as 'crap', this would have been another big ground for blocking me. jamaissur lemon or lime?
Unfortunately, Metta Bubble, you won't get unevasive or accurate answers from Slimvirgin or Jayjg, if you get any at all. In reply to her comments: it is not odd to note that a businessman has married into an important business family. Nor was that the "only" fact about Barry Townsley censored by admin User:Jayjg. The Guardian doesn't care about his dog either, but she cut a fact about him taken from The Guardian (see Jewish Care). jamaissur lemon or lime?
Back from a 48-hour block (after two 24-hr blocks).
The rule has been: censor all facts linking members of the Jewish community to wrongdoing and harass users attempting to include them. This happens because Jewish admins and their allies have very great influence and power here at Wikipedia -- another fact that cannot be acknowledged or discussed. Andrew Rosenfeld has been linked with a general charity, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, by the same admin, User:Jayjg, who has worked to censor 1) Rosenfeld's links with Jewish Care; 2) Barry Townsley's links with Jewish Care and with the Israel Center for Economic and Social Progress; 3) Townsley's marriage into an important Jewish business family. All 'trivia' according to Jayjg. Same for David Garrard (property developer)'s links with Jewish Care, World ORT and Conservative Friends of Israel. 'Trivia' again. Admin User:Slimvirgin and her friend admin User:Sean Black have censored facts in a way that no-one they disagreed with would have been allowed. So what I'd like to know is:
  • Why doesn't Wikipedia acknowledge that truth and comprehensive encyclopedic content take second place to favoured special interests and that censorship has been and will be employed whenever a favoured group so decides? If this is a good thing, why not let everyone know?
  • Why isn't the enormous power wielded by Jewish admins and their allies openly acknowledged by Wikipedia? Again, if it's a good thing, why not let everyone know?
  • Even if it is a good thing, will it remain so? Power tends to corrupt, and unexamined power tends to corrupt faster. Would Jayjg, Slimvirgin et al be happy to see some other group have the power their team presently has? (Rhetorical question, obviously.)
jamaissur lemon or lime?
Jamaissur, your agenda at Wikipedia has been to create articles on people you believe are British Jews involved in a particular political scandal. There were several non-Jews involved in the same scandal, but you notably haven't created articles about them. To have an article on a charity, Jewish care, consist almost entirely of the allegedly controversial activities (unrelated to the charity) of one of its donors is clearly absurd. As I've warned you, if this situation continues, you'll be blocked indefinitely. Finally, you don't know whether the admins who are watching you are Jewish or not. That they must be to want to remove your edits is another one of your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. That helped a lot. Jamaissur? Is it possible you could team up with somebody capable of writing the pro information about the relevant articles? I feel confident I would enjoy the articles a lot more if they were the product of a process like that. Overall, I find it hard to label this a censorship issue because it documents a current event. Yet, I don't have an opinion on the matter, except to say Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
true, it isn't, but facts from newspapers are freely used here -- except when a favoured special interest group decides to censor them. i'd also have thought that censorship of facts in current events still counts as censorship, and is possibly an even more serious kind, given that more people will be coming here to read about the current event while it's current than later. note also that for raising the points above, i got blocked for a week. jamaissur lemon or lime?
WP:NOT includes the policy that Wikipedia is not a news source; such readers as you mention should be using Wikinews instead. Trying to limit Wikipedia articles on current events to verifiable and NPOV facts, rather than everybody's unencyclopedic interpretations and speculations, is not censorship, it's a proper standard. Many editors are trying to keep any "special interest group" from including one-sided news content. Barno 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precious gem to watch

User:Markaci/Nudity

When a square goes white it means the image has been deleted. CrayZ 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To date only 4 images there have been deleted.
  • Image:Coolness.jpg, by User:Humus sapiens, "obscene image"
  • Image:PIX018.JPG.jpg, by User:Cryptic, "I4: no source since 08:20, 25 February 2006"
  • Image:VisionsYoga.jpg, by User:Angr, "I3"
  • Image:Carlsontwins.jpg, by User:BradPatrick, "Not acceptable fair use argument. Deleted."
The first and last seem to have been deleted improperly. I've contacted the users asking for more information. ~MDD4696 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Humus sapiens responded saying he was reverting vandalism; User:BradPatrick was removing blatant copyright infringement. Everything seems fine. ~MDD4696 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has project gone inactive?

There have been no changes to the project page or this talk page in almost a month now. If nobody replies, I will mark this as inactive.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Strangely the member's page is active. -- 127.*.*.1 02:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What? Wikipedians against censorship inactive? That would be a shame. Why do you think so? gala.martin (what?) 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This project is definitely NOT inactive! --Siva1979Talk to me 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I would give it longer than a month. Most projects on Wikipedia go through periods of inactivity. They usually aren't marked as inactive, though, unless they've been stagnant for several months. Kaldari 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that unlike content projects we don't usually go out and edit articles unless there's censorship going on. It's more of a "values" project, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for writing an encyclopedia. Loom91 06:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critics being silenced

Please keep an eye out. Some people are trying hard to remove criticsim of wikipedia even if it could be constructive criticism. We should have freedom of speech here. User:Sceptre has a talk page full of "don't remove other peopl's comments" from other users and has been deleting pages he disagree with. Please keep an eye out. Navigatrix 12:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sceptre's talk page has only two comments on removing talk page comments, both related to a single issue. User:Lou franklin (which I suspect was your original account, Navigatrix) was spamming people's talk pages with a frustrated rant. Sceptre reverted these. ~MDD4696 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi All

This User 87.17.136.171 has categorized as Humor the project page against censorship. I am wondering how this "fact" is considered in the English Wikipedia. --Fragolino - (Follow the white rabbit!) 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is viewed with disdain and lo! It was quickly reverted. We have enemies as past events have indicated. ;) -- 127.*.*.1 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give a consensus and offer assistance -Censorship

I have worked on an article for Charles Coughlin and I have entered a dispute with an editor. I want the opinions of wikipedians against censorship on whether or not this is censorship. This editor refuses to discuss this and deletes this sentence continually without a reason which leads me to believe that he takes personal offense to it and that is why he wants it removed even if its informative and has great encyclopedic value.

Here is the article and the line in bold is disputed and being continually removed:

After 1936, however, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism, though this was before World War II began. His radio broadcasts also became overtly anti-Semitic. He also began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed anti-Semitic accusations such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like Joseph Goebbels, Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot. On Nov. 20, 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, when Jews across Germany were attacked and killed, and Jewish businesses and homes burned, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims, saying that "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted."

Enlarge

After this speech, and as his programs became more anti-Semitic, some radio stations, including those in New York and Chicago, began refusing to air his speeches without pre-approved scripts. This made Coughlin a hero in Nazi Germany, where papers ran headlines like "America is Not Allowed to Hear the Truth." On December 18, 1938 two thousand of Coughlin's followers marched in New York protesting potential asylum law changes that would allow more Jews to enter the country, chanting, "Send Jews back where they came from in leaky boats!" and "Wait until Hitler comes over here!" these protests continued for several months. Donald Warren, using information from the FBI and German government archives, has also argued that Coughlin received indirect funding from Nazi Germany during this period.

Why I think it should stay: I believe this line should stay because I feel the whole article just says that Father Coughlin is anti semetic. It doesnt say why he is anti semetic and there are major holes in the article. Its one sided. This one line explains a lot because one:

1-It's accurate. It makes a connection to fascism as the article goes over. 2-It explains why someone like Father Coughlin, as a priest, would support a Nazi regime 3-The article talks about Father Coughlin being fascist but doesnt explain why. This one sentence makes a big connection to Coughlin supporting fascism. 4-It's Father Coughlin's viewpoint and explains why he supported the Nazis.

I am just trying to make the article fair and balanced without it being one sided. The whole article joes goes on about him being anti semetic facist but it doesnt say even one time why he was anti Semetic. I tried to add Father Coughlins viewpoint and it was being continually deleted without even a reason. I won't even get an answer. Please read the whole article over and give you opinion on whether or not this is censorship or if I am wrong. Here is the article: Charles Coughlin

Thanks,

Jerry Jones 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I should point out that I do not know much about Charles Coughlin. Secondly, you don't have to copy the entire article here. Finally, I'm not sure if this is censorship but reverting that sentence over POV is definately not right. However, the points over original research and verifiability still stand. If you can provide citations to back it up I think you have a case. -- 127.*.*.1 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You need some references to state your sentence (this is true in general, and expecially if the issue is disputed). On the other hand, if true, the part Coughlin claimed that Marxist atheism in Europe was a Jewish plot should stay. Anyway, in Europe there were many people claiming Jewish plots, so I do not understand why referring to Goebbles; of course, this also can be cleared with a suitable reference. --gala.martin (what?) 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help Request

[edit] Category:Anti-Semitic people

NEW VOTE

KEEP - This category was already voted on Vote and the decision was to KEEP. This +cat was posted for deletion without posting a Cfr or mentioning it on the +cats talk page. Just another sneaky trick to try to get it closed without a fair opportunity to vote. Please note, there are a lot of anti-Semites on the Internet that would love to shut this +cat down, they should not be allowed to do so Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship SirIsaacBrock 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox vandalized

The Template:User freespeech userbox was vandalized, changing the box text and removing all references to this project. I have reverted the changes. Just a quick FYI. — Wwagner 16:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox poll

A userbox poll is nearly done, and could do with a bit of support. It aims to stop Admins deleting userboxes and censoring people's opinions on their own userpages. - • The Giant Puffin • 12:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It is important to monitor the fact that POV pushers (in this case pedophiles)..." - Jimmy Wales

See here: [14]Skinnyweed 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29

This term is apparently offensive to some people, but the article itself is well-researched and balanced. I think it needs a little tweaking in the lead, but is otherwise of high quality. Despite this, it seems as though a lot of people want to delete it for reasons that do not seem entirely reasonable to me. I feel that this is a form of censorship. Al 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it's not already clear, you'll note that I'm not asking anyone to vote pro or con. Rather, I'm bringing this issue to the attention of a group dedicated to fighting censorship. In fact, I regret voting on this issue and would not recommend it to anyone. It seems clear that people are not voting on an honest basis, so any participation only lends legitimacy to this censorship attempt. Thank you for understanding. Al 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
When the scientists went mum (and still are going) on the issue of intelligent design in order to not lend legitmacy to the debate, they got a couple school districts changing it anyways. Shutting up about injustice simply allows a group to continue its oppression without publicity by your silenced comments. Therefore, if you've got a view, speak it up. Copysan 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would anyone like to investigate as to why User:Pimpalicious was banned, and whether it was discussed beforehand? 131.111.8.104 16:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] censorship alert- discussion

I strongly disagree with the accusation against my putting the alert on the notice board, I believe this is EXACTLY the appropriate place for this as this project is against ANY censorship in Wikipedia not just articles. For my full explanation you can refer to the discussion page on the issue.By the way, I find it ironic that Hipocrite as a member of Wikipedians against censorship tries to censor both my opinion and the very crucial vote thats been going on that is all about censorship, in addition I find it more than ironic that I'm accused of a "non-neutral" comment on the notice board by a user that himself expresses a clear "non-nuetral" comment in the sentence previous to his acustion of inuetrality (number 1). This irony also goes to the comment Hipocrite posted below. Tal :) 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This project was designed to deal with article content, not your whinging about how you can't have pretty boxes and call yourself a satanist on your user page. Go somewhere else. I'm not a member - I'm a founding member. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
N.B the fact that you are allegedly the "founding member" gives you no special privileges over other members, and thus your historical role is insignifcant to my argument... And note that I'm not going anywhere unless you block me (which will be a very clear cut case of rude form of censorship).Tal :) 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that my very comment has been self-censored by me due to alleged "threats" by a certain member...Tal :) 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down guys. It's not worth busting an artery about. Kaldari 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Christian Andersen

I would like to enlist my fellow anti-censorship members to suppress the campaign by one member to remove the cited academic references to Hans Christian Andersen's sexuality. Her complaint is that her child read it. Wikipedia should not be a place where references are removed because they mention homosexuality or masturbation. I would post this to the notice board, but I'm not quite sure how to yet :) Thanks! Wjhonson 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Wjhonson, I'm keeping an eye on it now although I doubt you'll have any more trouble from that particular user (Perri Rhoades) a quick glance through their other contributions and it looks like they've decided to part ways with wikipedia for other reasons. Caprosser 09:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I was wrong about Perri Rhoades going away, they are still at it unfortunately, I reverted their edit putting the material into its own section but I think its within reason to add the citations needed request and from what I gather that shouldn't be much of a problem for you to do so I'd recommend doing it quickly and hopefully everyone can move on. Caprosser 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paulinus of Nola

Again an alert, an anon editor keeps reverting Paulinus of Nola when I've posted a portion of a letter he wrote, which was published in an anthology. The portion I've posted is the exact (translated) words of Paulinus. The other editor is reverting based on an POV. So I'd appreciate support in reverting back, as I'm at my 2revert limit now. Thanks. Wjhonson 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the other editor refuses, so far, to discuss the scholarly issues of the text (if there are any), he just reverts based on his opinion, not that of a published source. Wjhonson 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikiporn" deletions

I included information regarding the "wikiporn" deletions on the project page. CharonX/talk 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The MFDs seem to be against Userspace galleries. We should move all the User space links and etc to this WP Talk against censorship space (note that a gallery has already been created within this WP talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery).
The reason can be: "Pornographic or sexually explicit pictures are often the subject of some controversy, and are often the targets of attempts to censor Wikipedia. This page is intended to make sure any pornographic picture has its due process in AfD. Any time a box goes blank or a red link goes red, interested parties should read on the AfD or the Speedy Delete page to see if the deletions were a part of censorship or just normal goings on in Wikipedia."
Also we should not include Commons pictures (since the scope of this project is Wikipedia). Fair use and otherwise article-only pictures should be linked. Copysan 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition censorship

I am seeing some religious censorship in Inquisition article. Some people are deleting any references to Inquisition practices, statistic death count, or persecution to any religion references (hindu, jew). I need help

I will look into this. Darthgriz98 19:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean, expecialy when they used the term coercion, there was no coercion involved, more like if you don't join you will be executed and persecuted if you were lucky enough. Probably someone defending the RCC or someone trying to butter up the article, it happens all the time. Nobody likes to hear mean things, except this is not what wiki is for. I'll help you out. Darthgriz98 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship_26a6.html"